[P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Why Do Property Rights "Work"?
[P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
-
Why Do Property Rights “Work”?
[P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
-
Why Do Property Rights “Work”?
[P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans
[T]he intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules: 0) Private property 1) Voluntary Exchange 2) Symmetry and Warranty* 3) Prohibition on Externality* 4) Requirement for Value Added* 5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding. 6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution. Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws): 7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law) 8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.) 9) The right of exclusion (ostracization). [T]hese last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft). 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. As Such, 1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts, 2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts 3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts. As Such, A Common Law System Can Function Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible. Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts. Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE. 1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable. 2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable 3) Measurements render relations commensurable 4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable. 5) Money renders goods and services commensurable 6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable
-
Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans
[T]he intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules: 0) Private property 1) Voluntary Exchange 2) Symmetry and Warranty* 3) Prohibition on Externality* 4) Requirement for Value Added* 5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding. 6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution. Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws): 7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law) 8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.) 9) The right of exclusion (ostracization). [T]hese last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft). 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. As Such, 1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts, 2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts 3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts. As Such, A Common Law System Can Function Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible. Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts. Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE. 1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable. 2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable 3) Measurements render relations commensurable 4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable. 5) Money renders goods and services commensurable 6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable