Source: Facebook

( OWNED )

@Bernard Mitochondrie

Well, here is something to work with, since we are finally narrowing this down to decidability on one hand, and limits to choice on the other. And my use of evolutionary necessity of reciprocity, correspondence with the evidence in norms and laws at all scales, logical decidability of reciprocity, the operational (incentives) necessary for reciprocity, an explanation of limits and parsimony of reciprocity. And coherence across all of the above. I mean.

I mean, at present you’re still trying to argue that your opinion matters, or that some group’s opinion matters, when the evidence from all groups is that reciprocity is the necessary means of social order, and that all in power maintain reciprocity, and everyone who is disadvantaged merely WRITES about how they wish it were otherwise. Hence why philosophy is excuse making nonsense, and law is practiced by the victors, and the victors choose reciprocity out of both necessity and utility.

There is no reason for the strong to let those less strong live other than by profiting from them. The degree of reciprocity determines the rate of production. We codify reciprocity by definition rights to property (interests). Everywhere. From the most primitive village to the most advaned economy,all that varies is the atomicity of property given the available division of labor.

—“There is no reason for a basis of law other than property. – Late Rothbard

There is no reason for a basis of law other than maintaining upper class power. – Marxist Anarchists

There is no reason for a basis of law other than determining who gets cattle. – Some Nuer wiseman

There is plenty of reasons for free riding. -Communists

Fraud is justifiable. – RM

Theft is justifiable. – Illegalists

Rent is theft. – Mutualists

Harm is part of life. – Angry people

We need to spread responsibility to amplify the market. – Current law via LLCs.

Very objective. Not a lens.”—

You forgot to mention: historians, scientists, jurists, politicians – and only listed the ‘conscientious objectors’ who cannot compete and survive by reciprocity.

What do all of these thinkers have in common? Their words can only be stated as violations of reciprocity. Otherwise they have no meaning. If they are not tests of reciprocity they are tests of power. If they are tests of power, they are tests of power to deviate from reciprocity. In homogenous societies differences are ameliorated through reciprocity. In heterogeneous they are amplified by its absence.

Each statement by ‘outsiders’ above, is reducible to ‘the only reason not to engage in free riding parasitism and predation is if the cost of forgoing those opportunities is more rewarding than the returns on acting upon them.

For example….

– rothbard seeks to escape reciprocity (payment for) commons, despite that it is commons that are required to create the institution of property.

I can state each of them by the same means: what are they trying to steal, and why would the strong and the able let the weak and the unable live?

First question of philosophy upon which all others are based (Camus): “Why don’t we commit suicide? And conversely at what point do we commit suicide?”

The first question of ethics and politics upon which all others are based (Doolittle): “Why don’t I kill you, take your stuff, and territory, enslave your women and children? And conversely, at what point do I kill you, take your stuff and territory, and enslave or kill your women and children?”

Here is the deal: reciprocity is decidable, and violations of reciprocity decidable. Always and everywhere. Cooperation has extraordinary value. Non-cooperation has extraordinary costs. The only reason to let people live is cooperation, and the only incentive to cooperate is reciprocity. If parties are both strong, then reciprocity is the only terms under which cooperation is tolerable. So while cooperation is extremely rewarding over the long term, predation is more rewarding over the short term, and some free riding and parasitism are tolerable costs. But without reciprocity no social (voluntarily cooperative) organization can survive evolution.

So reciprocity is always decidable, and that is why it is the basis of rule of law.

Convergence on reciprocity is the same as convergence on sovereignty, convergence on a division of labor, conversion on property, convergence on science and operationalism.