Source: Facebook

—“Propertarianism sounds Fascist”— (a useful idiot)

Bruce (all),

That would imply that property rights were not in and of themselves fascist – as you mean the term “fascist”. When in fact, such rights must be somehow insured by force.

On the other hand, the way you use the term (as a pejorative analogy) is not an honest or truthful representation of the term ‘Fascist’, but mere name calling as a means of avoiding argument. It is a form of gossip: rallying and shaming as a substitute for argument.

The communal left’s view of property is that it is theft of the commons, since, in their assessment, all existential reality constitutes a commons if we are to cooperate and eschew violence and theft at all. In turn, we must argue that we do not wish to cooperate in those circumstances where it is against our interests to cooperate on their terms. And they likewise will respond that it is not in their interest to cooperate in those circumstances where it is against their interests to cooperate on our terms.

It may be (it is) certainly true that in the long run, that individual property rights produce the lowest friction, highest opportunity, highest velocity, and greatest incentive for production – and that by consequence, that production reduces relative prices and absolute cost (caloric cost) of everything produced.

But it is not true that in the short term, that in the interests of the less able, less willing, and less fortunate, are not better served by the seeking of rents on their perception of commons – particularly if they respect property rights to any degree whatsoever, and in doing so pay the cost of constructing property rights, and thereby the voluntary organization of production.

So we are, demanding individual property rights, terribly fascist – imposing unwanted rules on the distribution and use of resources.

Taking the argument further. If it is in your interests to use what those of us consider the most important commons – that of information and norms – in terms we find just as heinous as the left finds private property, it is again, a matter of willingness to cooperate and therefore eschew violence and theft, or to return to violence and theft if such cooperation is unsuitable.

You can, of course, argue why you should not be held accountable for the manufacture, distribution and sale of harmful and unwarrantied goods fraudulently represented, even if such fraud is but by omission, or the harm that of ignorance due to a failure of due diligence. Why is it that you may use the market that is created by millions of people paying the high cost of forgoing theft, violence, fraud and fraud by omission, to sell defective goods? Is that not in itself theft? Or, is the rothbardian emphasis on material property merely a rhetorical ruse to justify pervasive theft and fraud? (it is.)

Man is apex predator – particularly against himself. Why should the strong cooperate rather than conquer? Why should the weak respect property? Why should the cunning trade honestly? Because unless we do, none of the others have incentive to cooperate with us.

Neither aristocracy (violence and law), bourgeoise (production and trade), intellectual (gossip and myth) or proletarian (laborer) can have his preference. We all must trade compromises with one another. The market for goods and services allows us to do so where competition provides positive incentives. The market for commons that we mistakenly call government allows us to trade that which we cannot trade in the market where competition provides malincentives.

That is science. Everything else is justification. Libertine justification of fraud, fraud by omission, and profiting from harm, included.

Man does not object morally to self harm. He objects to profiting from assisting others in self harm. Man does not object morally to profit. He objects to profit from non-production. We evolved a distasted for in-group parasitism. That disgust is called ‘moral sensibility’. Unfortunately, our christian lie of universalism necessary for the extension of trust beyond kinship, came at the expense of our prior pagan truth of inequality. And as such, we have evolved a christian normative set of taboos that prohibit our understanding of the inter-temporal division of moral labor. Each group conservative (long) libertarian (medium) and progressive (short), divides the labor of perceiving the universe around us, and reacting through ‘moral intuition’ in response to it. Then justifying our intuition with words, we negotiate with one another to serve the whole – short medium and long term – by exchanges. Libertines and progressives are apparently (measurably) morally blind, while conservatives seem to see the entire spectrum. So trade between moral intuitions is just as important as trade in the market – because none of us (save perhaps some conservatives) is capable of sensing the entire spectrum. Instead, each of us advocates his own reproductive strategy, and calls it ‘moral’. But it is no more an accurate representation of moral reality than an individual has an accurate perception of the market.

Cheers.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine

(I don’t hope to convince you. I’m casting a net for smart people. Every once in a while we find one. And these conversations are for the purpose of finding them.)

cc: pi

———

Bruce Majors Wrote:

Propertarianism Sounds fascist

———

Curt Doolittle Wrote”

DISCUSSION:

In a statist world, where we have lost the right of universal standing in defense of the commons, and where the state has deemed itself judge of all provisions of all commons (if not in practice also treating our private property as a commons merely on loan to us), then yes, these ads did and do exist – only because we lack universal standing through state usurpation.

In a libertine world, (Rothbardian), then no, these advertisements are not prohibited, nor does standing exist for claims against manufacturers, distributors and advertisers. There is no implied warranty in libertinism. There is no requirement for truth in libertinism. There are no informational commons in libertinism. (And therefore no western civilization.) And there is no responsibility for externalities in libertinism.

In a Propertarian world, these advertisements are not regulated, but universal standing would prevent their promotion as violations of the informational commons, and the injured would have rights of restitution (expensive restitution) against those who manufactured and distributed such goods. However, individuals who personally produced, or non-commercially produced these goods, would have no recourse.

Good example for use in comparing political systems.

Curt