Source: Facebook

DRAFT – IMPROVING LESTER – OPERATIONALISM

(I have to do more work on this but I’m running out of gas today. You probably can see what I’m doing.

From Lester’s Leviathan:

—“1. Interpersonal liberty exists to the extent that people do not impose costs on each other.”—JCLester

(Note: Before we get going, note that I use the terms “Free Riding” and “Involuntary Transfer” as if to say “One free rides upon the actions of others when he causes an involuntary transfer of the other’s property. I prefer my terms as anyone would, but for all intents and purposes, the act of causing another a loss of property that he has accumulated is the same description regardless of whether we use the terms “imposed cost, involuntary transfer, theft, or free-riding” all of which semantically differ only in the point of view of the observer expressing the term and the historical loading associated with the terms.)

-Interactions-

Let us distinguish between the different possible forms of group interaction: (direct->)(Gv1)Genocide, (Gv2)Conquest, (Gv2)Conflict, (Gc)Competition, (Gp)Cooperation, (Ge) Exchange (production), (Gr1) Charity, (Gr2)Parasitism, (Gr3)Predation (<-indirect) because cooperation and conflict an be conducted by multiple means of severity and method.

(show graph 1)

-Conflict-

Let us define conflict as the imposition of costs upon others; and let us define cooperation as the avoidance of the imposition of costs upon others.

-Relations-

Let us further distinguish between cooperation upon (Ck)Kin, (Ce) Ends, (Cm) Means, and (Ca) Avoidance/Boycott. (Because all relations are not equally important to us, and our kin are more important to us than those with whom cooperation is of little use.)

(show graph 2)

Let us define costs. Costs must be imposed against something? What is the definition of those things that we impose costs against? What is the positive assertion of the negative prohibition? We call that “Property” such that the negative prohibition on free riding (imposed costs) can be stated as positive examples that are possible to enumerate.

-Property-

Let us define property as (i) (Pa) that which I have homesteaded, (Pb) that which I have received in exchange, and (Pc) that which I have transformed from that which I have homesteaded or exchanged; and (ii) where under (Pa),(Pb), and (Pc), I acted with the presumption of a monopoly of control over private property, or in the construction of a commons (shareholder asset) that I may use but not ‘consume’, or in payment for a commons, that I constantly consume and must keep replenished (property rights are such a norm that is a constant unending cost).

-Costs-

So, costs are those actions which cause a decrease in property. Furthermore, let us define that which is not property, as that which it is impossible to impose costs upon.

-Terms-

Let us convert the spectrum of impositions into common language so that we can discuss legal, moral, and ethical violations in familiar terms..

(1-Interpersonal-)

Criminal

Unethical

(2-Impersonal-)

Immoral

(3-Organized-)

Conspiratorial

(4-External-)

Invasion

Conquest

(Show graph 3)

-Liberty- Let us define liberty as a successful implementation (habituation in a body of people) of a normative contact that forbids the involuntary imposition of costs upon others, and under which we can somehow logically resolve disputes by rational and non-subjective, means.

If we have succeeded in constructing a normative contract, whether expressly stated, or merely habituated and intuited, for non predatory, non-parasitic and therefore productive, voluntary cooperation, and by consequence, for the voluntary organization of production, then we can claim to have constructed a condition of liberty, by constructing a contract for the condition of liberty. For a condition of liberty to exist, individuals must succeed in constructing a normative contract, and the means of resolving disputes under the terms of that contract.

(Show liberty on the graph 4)

That seems to be fairly settled reasoning. I guess, I’d have to ask, why such a thing was so unnatural that we would have to define it with such care and effort.

ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM

The problem with the NAP/IVP is that it only addresses category #1-Criminal- property violations. And since humans universally demonstrate extraordinary willingness to apply even costly violence to punish violators of the entire spectrum, and that the state is necessary either to suppress such violations, or to suppress punishment of violators, the NAP/IVP is an insufficient definition of property for the rational formation of a voluntary polity. In other words, it doesn’t make sense to join a voluntary polity – the transaction costs are too high compared to a statist or high trust polity. Furthermore, the evidence is that (in the case of gypsies and jews) that periodic extermination is the punishment for relying upon rothbardian ethics. Or, as is the case in Muslim countries and Asia, high demand for both corruption and the state to suppress violence because of the permissibility of violations of property.

More later