Source: Facebook

  • PROPERTARIANISM Types of Property The anarchist libertarians have artificially n

    PROPERTARIANISM

    Types of Property

    The anarchist libertarians have artificially narrowed the concept of property to suit their desired ends. Property exists in those forms that people ACT as if it exists. If the anarchists choose to suggest otherwise, they refute their own arguments for the Praxeological necessity for the institution of property. Humans demonstrably act as though there are four categories of property:

    I. Interpersonal (Relationship) Property

    Cooperative Property: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”

    Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    Children (genetic reproduction)

    Familial Relations (security)

    Non-Familial Relations (utility)

    Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)

    Racial property (racial ties)

    Organizational ties (work)

    Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)

    Status and Class (reputation)

    II. Several (Personal) Property

    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    Physical Body

    Actions and Time

    Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.

    Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

    III. Artificial Property

    Artificial Property: “Can a group issue specific rights to members?” This topic is dependent again, upon the ORIGIN question above. If markets are made, then the shareholders of the market may create artificial property of any type that they desire. Including but not limited to:

    Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

    Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of monopoly within a geography)

    Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

    IV. Institutional (Community) Property

    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.”

    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.

    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.

    VOLUNTARY TRANSFER

    Types of Voluntary Transfer

    i – Self-Eschange: (for perks)

    ii – Other-Exchange (everything is exchange)

    iii – Commons-Exchange (contribution to the commons)

    Constraints on Voluntary Transfer

    1. Symmetry (Ethics): Fully informed exchange. The responsibility or lack of responsibility for symmetric knowledge in an exchange. Stated as “In any exchange the seller has an ethical obligation to mitigate fraud from the asymmetry of knowledge.” Classical liberals and Christian authors advocate symmetrical-knowledge ethics. Anarchists and Jewish authors advocate asymmetrical-knowledge ethics. Rothbard and Block are asymmetrical advocates. Most classical liberals lack the knowledge of Rothbardian/Hoppian ethics necessary to articulate their values in Propertarian terms. However, the classical liberals as well as the Hayekians, both advocate symmetrical-knowledge ethics whether they articulate the ideas effectively or not.

    2. Warranty: Implied warranty is a derivation of Symmetrical Knowledge Ethics above. Expressed as: “In any exchange the seller must warrant his goods and services to prevent fraud by asymmetry of information.” Classical liberal and Christian authors imply warranty. Anarchist and Jewish authors expressly deny warranty. (I address this elsewhere as the bazaar exchange ethic vs the warrior exchange ethic.)

    3. Contribution (value added): You must add value to any item exchanged for profit, and you certainly may not profit from others distress or harm.

    4. Externalities: “No exchange, action or inaction may cause involuntary transfers from others”. Whether or not there is a prohibition against all involuntary external transfers (classical liberal and Christian authors), or a prohibition only against state conduct of involuntary transfers (anarchist and Jewish authors).

    5. Exclusion (Ostracization) Whether individuals can aggregate into groups have the right of exclusion. That is, to prohibit individuals from a defined area. While all seem to agree that individuals must have the right of passage in some way, others deny groups from forming a boundary and in effect prohibiting immigration.

    INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER (PARASITISM)

    Types of Involuntary Transfer

    i-Direct Interpersonal

    – Murder

    – Violence

    – Destruction

    – Theft

    – Theft by Fraud

    – Theft by Fraud by omission

    ii – Indirect Interpersonal

    – Theft by Obstruction

    – Theft by Externalization

    iii – Indirect Social

    – Theft by Free riding

    – Theft by privatization

    – Theft by socialization

    iv – Conspiratorial Social

    – Theft by Rent seeking

    – Theft by Complexity, Rule, Process or Obscurantism

    – Theft by Extortion

    – Murder, Destruction and Theft by War

    v – Conquest

    – Immigration

    – Overbreeding

    – Religious Expansion


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-27 14:12:00 UTC

  • **Basic rule of ethics: if you aren’t willing to insure it yourself then you sho

    **Basic rule of ethics: if you aren’t willing to insure it yourself then you shouldn’t have made the loan.**

    The govenrment had to insert all this risk into the economy in order to use the financial system as a distribution network for getting money into the hands of consumers.

    We don’t need to use a financial system to distribute money to consumers with loans.

    We can just DISTRIBUTE IT TO CONSUMERS.

    I’d rather fight for consumer’s spending than fight my government and corrupt bankers who exploit my people, and destroy my savings.

    I’d rather the average joe who doesn’t pay any substantial taxes had the same self interest in shrinking the government than I do as a taxpayer.

    I don’t like redistribution. But then, I like consumers to have money that I can capture a piece of – that I can COMPETE for.

    I like government abuse of me and my citizens, and government’s predilection for war, more than I dislike redistribution.

    I like that if we redistributed cash, then we wouldn’t be dependent upon immigration, and in fact, we’d have every incentive NOT to allow immigration except of highly talented people.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-27 13:01:00 UTC

  • (I can get my facts wrong like anyone else. And I can get my theory wrong – alth

    (I can get my facts wrong like anyone else. And I can get my theory wrong – although I’m better at that than I used to be, because I tend to test a theory pretty excruciatingly. But you know, my logic is pretty damned good. All the way ’round. I know that. Simply from experience I know that. Logic is an incredibly useful tool. The only way to test theories and facts for internal consistency is through logic, and the only way to test external correspondence is by constantly subjecting your theories to tests against all data new that you can find. You’re never really ‘done’ testing your theory until no further increase in use can be obtained from it. When you run out of things that you can test and it holds up for the purposes you need it then you’re pretty well set. As such people jump to conclusions far too early. The only way you know something is when you run out of ways to test it. And you must test both internal consistency and external correspondence for both explanatory power and falsifications power.)


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-27 05:29:00 UTC

  • ROBERT HIGGS MISSES THE POINT I don’t like internecine battles. I criticize them

    ROBERT HIGGS MISSES THE POINT

    I don’t like internecine battles. I criticize them all the time. However, the reasons that we are criticized are very often justifiable, because we have too many rothbardians spewing dogma the consequences of which they do not understand. Yet, those who have higher moral standards **DO** understand. Especially conservatives who also want liberty, but who understand, better than libertarians, the threshold of morality necessary for us to rationally grant any liberty to one another at all.

    Rothbard did great work on history but his philosophy was a catastrophe. It doomed our movement from the start.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-27 02:42:00 UTC

  • SIMPLE GENERAL RULES : PHYSICAL SCIENCE VERSUS COOPERATIVE SCIENCE The physical

    SIMPLE GENERAL RULES : PHYSICAL SCIENCE VERSUS COOPERATIVE SCIENCE

    The physical universe consists of very simple general rules that produce very complex results.

    The moral universe, likewise consists of very simple rules that produce very complex results.

    By speaking in the language of construction – in operational language – we can teach people those very general rules.

    Just as we have simplified the physical world through the use of the operational language of the physical sciences, we can simplify the political world through the use of the operational language of cooperation.

    The language of American Conservatism is lost in layers of allegorical loading and framing. They know how to USE terms but they do not understand the construction of those terms.

    If we give conservatives knowledge of ethical and moral construction, they will then be able to argue their aristocratic egalitarian ethics in rational language.

    Ethics it turns out, is a very simple subject. With very simple general rules.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:34:00 UTC

  • “ALL INVOLUNTARY TRANSFERS ARE A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCTIVE EXCHANGE”

    “ALL INVOLUNTARY TRANSFERS ARE A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR PRODUCTIVE EXCHANGE”


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:19:00 UTC

  • WELL, I DID IT. I CREATED “SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL REALISM” Didn’t mean to. Just

    WELL, I DID IT. I CREATED “SCIENTIFIC AND ETHICAL REALISM”

    Didn’t mean to. Just was a byproduct of trying to solve the problem of ethical rules for a post-democratic society.

    Universal ethics.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:17:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARD’S ETHICAL GHETTO Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the

    ROTHBARD’S ETHICAL GHETTO

    Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the strong’s ability to use violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to entrap, lie, cheat and steal.

    Liberty was created at the point of a sharp metal object, by heroic males, as a means of suppressing all forms of cheating on the backs of others.

    Rothbard’s pretense is simply a means of justifying parasitism on that hard won liberty.

    There is nothing libertarian about Rothbardian ethics.

    Its just a complex philosophical lie to justify immoral and unethical theft.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:15:00 UTC

  • IRRATIONAL, AND EVOLUTIONARILY DESTRUCTIVE, ROTHBARDIAN PARASITIC ETHICS. It is

    IRRATIONAL, AND EVOLUTIONARILY DESTRUCTIVE, ROTHBARDIAN PARASITIC ETHICS.

    It is irrational and very likely an evolutionary impossibility for an organism to tolerate extraction or parasitism from it’s own kind except in matters of limited kin selection.

    The evolution of cooperation requires that we deny others the ability to free ride on our efforts, cheat against us, or steal from us, while still insuring each other against periods of incapacity to produce.

    So why would any group tolerate rothbardian ethics EXCEPT as a means of predation and parasitism on neighbors?

    They wouldn’t.

    Rothbardian ethics are irrational. Aggression either must include prohibition on cheating, non-predatory exchange, and all other forms of extractive parasitism, or else aggression is an insufficient test of rational property rights. The only tolerable means of cooperation is PRODUCTIVE, FULLY INFORMED, WARRANTIED, VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE.

    Everything else is just an excuse for suppressing the strong’s violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to lie cheat and steal.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 12:23:00 UTC

  • KNOWLEDGE OF CONSTRUCTION VS KNOWLEDGE OF USE Joel Mokyr did a wonderful job in

    KNOWLEDGE OF CONSTRUCTION VS KNOWLEDGE OF USE

    Joel Mokyr did a wonderful job in Gifts of Athena, but he has the strange jewish predilection for conflating verbalisms with existence. He refers to “Knowledge of how” and “knowledge of what”. These are verbal categories only. They aren’t causal categories.

    I use the terms “Knowledge of Construction” and “Knowledge of Use” (how). While “Use” and “How” share similar properties, “Construction and What” are sufficiently different in properties to mean considerably different things.

    “Construction” requires action in time. I have no idea what “What” should mean other than an empty verbal category. It’s a purely self-centered, experiential statement.

    I am fairly sure that if someone says they understand something, it means a knowledge of construction. Whether they can use it or not is only a small portion of the possible domain.

    Construction, Use, Intended Consequence, Unintended Consequence.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 11:16:00 UTC