One measure is the difficulty in getting into the economics program at GMU. And it’s non trivial. There is quite a bit of demand there. I think Brian has made a niche for himself as someone who thinks outside the box in certain areas and for that reason I think he’s taken seriously. The problem is more one of the question you’re asking. That is “the establishment”. There is no such consensus in economics that one could call ‘the establishment’, on anything other than some pretty broad brush concepts. There are a large number of people who support the investment and government communities. There are fewer who handle social issues. So economics is a set of biases and specialties and it’s useful to look at thinkers in the context of their niche, not so much as whether they’re mainstream or not.
One measure is the difficulty in getting into the economics program at GMU. And it’s non trivial. There is quite a bit of demand there. I think Brian has made a niche for himself as someone who thinks outside the box in certain areas and for that reason I think he’s taken seriously. The problem is more one of the question you’re asking. That is “the establishment”. There is no such consensus in economics that one could call ‘the establishment’, on anything other than some pretty broad brush concepts. There are a large number of people who support the investment and government communities. There are fewer who handle social issues. So economics is a set of biases and specialties and it’s useful to look at thinkers in the context of their niche, not so much as whether they’re mainstream or not.
You need to get in the habit of putting out a piece a day on your core idea. ‘Cause it’s good. Just riff off something in the news. Stay on message. Keep repeating the core argument from many different angles.
Great of you to weigh in on this topic. You’ve also provided Rothbardians with an ‘out’ that I didn’t think of. That the NAP is fullness of libertarianism but not the fullness of life. I’d thought that the only ‘out’ was that rothbardian libertarianism was sufficient for the moral interaction of states, but insufficient for the construction of a polity.
THE PROBLEM IS LAW
It’s true that aggression is immoral and it’s true that aggression must be illegal. But is it rational for humans to join a voluntary, anarchic polity, if the basis of **LAW** is “non-aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property”, or must the basis of law be either based on something other than aggression, or broader in scope than intersubjectively verifiable property?
What is the minimum basis for the law upon which it becomes rational to join a voluntary, anarchic polity?
If we have a choice between:
(a) a totalitarian capitalist society, like say, China.
(b) a contemporary social democracy, like say the States.
(c) an anarchic polity in which one CAN bring suit against immoral and unethical actions (say, blackmail, and fraud by omission).
(d) an anarchic polity where unethical and immoral actions are expressly licensed by the law, and retribution for immoral and unethical actions is forbidden.
1) Then which of these will which people of which moral biases, choose?
2) How will members of that polity be treated by members of the competing polities?
3) How will the territory and trade representatives of that polity be treated by competing polities?
I think that an intellectually honest analysis of those questions produces an obvious, and remarkably consistent answer. That is, that either aggression is the incorrect test of peaceful cooperation, or intersubjectively verifiable property is an insufficient test of the scope of property that must be protected from violation, or more likely both.
The current proceeds of anthropology, genetics, and cognitive science, tell us that violations of the evolutionary preference for cooperation, are reducible to ‘free riding’: that is non-contribution. Since in any set of individuals, if we do not require productive contribution, then some are the victims of free riding (parasitism) and others benefit from free riding (parasitism).
MORALITY
If we analyze the common prohibitions of all moral codes under all family structures, and we remove moral constraints that are purely ritualistic, these moral codes are universally reducible to necessary prohibitions on what we would call ‘property violations’ in an effort to facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation.
Moral Prohibition Spectra:
1) Agression: Harm/Oppression,
2) Trust: Subversion/Betrayal/Cheating,
3) Purity: Inobservance of Norms/Behavioral impurity/Pollution
All of these are reducible to shareholder rights and obligations.
Humans universally demonstrate a greater interest in punishing moral violations than we demonstrate self interest. IN fact, we justify our pre-cognitive moral punishments without even being able to articulate why we hold them. We are wired for morality.
We evolved language and punishments violations of these moral intuitions in the form of criminal, ethical, and moral prohibitions:
7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)
8. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)
9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)
10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)
11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)
12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)
13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)
14. Extortion (Organized direct theft)
15. War (organized violence)
PROPERTY
We can empirically observe that people treat a broad spectrum of things as their property, and that they intuit violations of that property, and act to defend that property.
I. Several (Personal) Property
Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”
Physical Body and Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.
II. Artificial Property
Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)
Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).
III. Kin and Interpersonal (Relationship) Property
Mates (access to sex/reproduction)
Children (genetic reproduction)
Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)
IV Status and Class (reputation)
Social Status
Reputation
V. Institutional (Community) Property
(i) Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”
(ii)Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.
(iii)Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.
ECONOMICS
We can judge economic impacts of high trust societies that practice near total prohibition on criminal, unethical and immoral actions. And we can compare those to low trust societies that suppress fewer unethical and immoral actions.
CLOSING
So under what reasoning, would it be logical to support the Non Aggression Principle under Intersubjectively verifiable property (NAP/IVP) as the basis for the law, which explicitly licenses unethical and immoral action and prohibits retribution for it?
The NAP/IVP has been a detriment to liberty wherever advocates argue that it is a sufficient means of determining moral and legal rules of cooperation. Because it’s not.
And we cannot pursue an alternative to the existing high trust society without providing people with an alternative that is morally SUPERIOR to the state. And the NAP/IVP fails that test.
“Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism.
Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla
ANSWER
[A]lejandro,
Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read.
I hope what follows helps.
1) ARISTOCRACY
Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization)
High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it.
(a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers.
(b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights.
(c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract.
2) PROTESTANT
The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south.
3) PARASITISM
Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding.
4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT
Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists.
Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science.
Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.)
So I have attempted:
(a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism.
(b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society.
(c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract.
(d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law.
5) GETTING UP TO DATE
————————————-
PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/
A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/
THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/
SIGNALING PROPERTIES
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/
Cheers
Curt
PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS
“Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism.
Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla
ANSWER
[A]lejandro,
Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read.
I hope what follows helps.
1) ARISTOCRACY
Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization)
High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it.
(a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers.
(b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights.
(c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract.
2) PROTESTANT
The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south.
3) PARASITISM
Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding.
4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT
Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists.
Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science.
Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.)
So I have attempted:
(a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism.
(b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society.
(c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract.
(d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law.
5) GETTING UP TO DATE
————————————-
PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/
A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/
THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/
SIGNALING PROPERTIES
http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/
Cheers
Curt
PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS
EUGENIC REPRODUCTION WAS A CONSEQUENCE NOT A PURPOSE
(smart questions from Todd Myers)
TODD:
—“Presumably if you are working on an evolutionary model, morality would be evaluated on its ability to facilitate or hinder the likelihood that genes of those practicing it are passed on. “—
CURT:
I think that if universal moral rules necessary for cooperation are followed the result is eugenic. I think that eugenic reproduction (getting the best to reproduce more) is a necessary and higher good than dysgenic reproduction (what we are doing now). (Why do we pay less competent people to have more children instead of paying more competent people to have more children? In a world where children are not only unnecessary but undesirable, because of our success and promoting dysgenic reproduction.)
TODD:
—“Am I mistaken about the purpose of your project and its relation to sociobiological foundations?”—
CURT
Well, no, It’s not a purpose. I didn’t start out that way at all. It’s an interesting *consequence*. My purpose was to finish the classical liberal and anarchic program by creating a universal language of morality (ethical realism), the rules for constructing political systems (propertarianism), and to recommend ONE political system to perpetuate the historical uniqueness of western civilization as the world’s most innovative and adaptive peoples (aristocratic egalitarianism). So I just wanted to convert the european tradition into rational (and scientific) language. It wasn’t until very late that I understood that the northern european (aristocratic manorial) model was eugenic. But once I did understand, it became somewhat obvious why europe excelled for its reasons (facilitating reproduction of the best, while suppressing and underfeeding the rest) and asia for different reasons (killing a lot of trouble makers as often as possible,keeping the poor in slave conditions on the edge of starvation, and using wealth to feed the noble families who would work to study.) And conversely, why every other civilization did not.
So, the ultimate moral question though as to whether something is good or not, must in the end return to ‘is it good for man?’ Eugenic reproduction, economic productivity without population growth, continuous increases in consumption (of energy) without population growth, continuous technological innovation without population growth, and our eventual loss of dependence upon the planet for our existence, are probably all ‘goods’, and everything else is cooperating on those tests there while not doing harm to one another.
We have too much data now about the reproductive results and costs of ‘bad people’. It’s terrifying really. Then we have the problem of people who aren’t bad but are of so little use to others that they cannot find labor. It is these people who produce the most children. And that cannot remain in place for long.
I hope this answered your question. It was a very smart one.
Well I know that. But my argument is rock solid. They’ll catch on. I just have to create a bit of a problem in the space for long enough to get my point across. Then I’ll show them the way to reconcile it. It’s better if they reconcile it themselves before I do that so I will delay as long as possible. But I’ll show them how to reconcile their silly rothbardianism with reality.I’ll give them an out.
