(the most important bit of philosophy that you will read today) [A]s intelligence increases morality increases, and concern about morality decreases. The reasons are still being debated, but the general theory is that (a) smarter people can identify dishonesty more easily, and (b) smarter people can rely upon wit and cunning as a competitive advantage so that they have less trouble competing honestly. To which I would like to add (c) that the higher you are in the food chain the more abstract property you are dealing with and therefore the harder it is to steal it. Libertarians tend to be very bright. But libertarians also test as abnormally insensitive to moral questions. The connection between the two facts is pretty obvious. We libertarians are less concerned with immorality because it’s easy for us to defend against. I don’t take the position that we’re less moral. Only that immorality is less of a challenge for us SO WE DISCOUNT THE TRANSACTION COSTS of immoral activity, whereas everyone else does NOT discount those transaction costs. This explains why libertarians are more easily fooled by Rothbardian ethics than conservatives (aristocratic egalitarians) and progressives (socialists). The moral economy is less valuable to us than to conservatives and progressives. We discount the cost of immoral and unethical behavior. But if we want to build a polity – the fact is: we’re wrong. Those transaction costs increase as intelligence and general knowledge decrease. And so it’s just not rational for a body of people to adopt Rothbardian ethics. They aren’t moral ENOUGH for suppression of immoral and unethical behavior, and the high transaction costs imposed upon people who must deal with pervasive immoral and unethical behavior. [P]rivate property is what remains when a polity suppresses all free riding: violence, theft, fraud, cheating, externalizing, privatizing, conspiracy, corruption and extortion. And people will not grant one another private property rights and reduce demand for the state unless suppression of free riding (immoral and unethical behavior) is present FIRST. Curt Doolittle
Source: Original Site Post
-
Rules of Ethical and Moral Exchanges
DEFINITIONS ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange. CASES NON/MORAL / AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence) UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical) ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical) IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral). MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).
-
Rules of Ethical and Moral Exchanges
DEFINITIONS ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange. CASES NON/MORAL / AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence) UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical) ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical) IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral). MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).
-
Lou Rockwell Pissing On The Terminological Fire Hydrant
[I]f Lou wants to claim ‘libertarian’ as the name for a political movement that advocates lying, deception, and general scumbaggery, then why should we morally allow the term liberty and libertarian to be associated with lying, deception, and immoral scumbaggery? Sorry. The origin of liberty is aristocracy, not parasitic low trust, lying, cheating, dishonest scumbaggery. Liberty isn’t your fire-hydrant Lou. You had your chance. you picked an immoral ethical code and failed. You picked a pseudoscience and failed. It’s time for the next generation to try to do better. Sorry man, but Rothbardianism is a dead cat bounce. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/
-
Lou Rockwell Pissing On The Terminological Fire Hydrant
[I]f Lou wants to claim ‘libertarian’ as the name for a political movement that advocates lying, deception, and general scumbaggery, then why should we morally allow the term liberty and libertarian to be associated with lying, deception, and immoral scumbaggery? Sorry. The origin of liberty is aristocracy, not parasitic low trust, lying, cheating, dishonest scumbaggery. Liberty isn’t your fire-hydrant Lou. You had your chance. you picked an immoral ethical code and failed. You picked a pseudoscience and failed. It’s time for the next generation to try to do better. Sorry man, but Rothbardianism is a dead cat bounce. http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/
-
Comparison Of Libertarian Ethical Systems
(You can see from this chart how Rothbardianism is immoral. In fact, it’s a a specialization in immorality: the involuntary transfer of property against the will of others.)
-
Comparison Of Libertarian Ethical Systems
(You can see from this chart how Rothbardianism is immoral. In fact, it’s a a specialization in immorality: the involuntary transfer of property against the will of others.)
-
Rothbardian Ethics are Parasitic
1) Ghetto ethics only require that the exchange is voluntary. 2) They do not require that the exchange is productive, only that parties are satisfied. (blackmail for example is not productive.) 3) They do not require fully informed exchange backed by warranty. (they allow lying and cheating and information holding) 4) They do not prohibit profiting from harm, or causing harm (Usury for example.) 5) They do not require that the exchange is free of externality. Parasitic ethics of rothbard require only the first, but the high trust ethics of Protestant require all five criteria. High trust ethics (and human in-group moral instinct) require that we eschew free riding (parasitism) and the only means of doing so, is to require exchanges be internally and externally productive. Under rothbardian ethics it is possible to profit without contribution to production, and to exist entirely parasitically. ie: his ethics are parasitic.
-
Rothbardian Ethics are Parasitic
1) Ghetto ethics only require that the exchange is voluntary. 2) They do not require that the exchange is productive, only that parties are satisfied. (blackmail for example is not productive.) 3) They do not require fully informed exchange backed by warranty. (they allow lying and cheating and information holding) 4) They do not prohibit profiting from harm, or causing harm (Usury for example.) 5) They do not require that the exchange is free of externality. Parasitic ethics of rothbard require only the first, but the high trust ethics of Protestant require all five criteria. High trust ethics (and human in-group moral instinct) require that we eschew free riding (parasitism) and the only means of doing so, is to require exchanges be internally and externally productive. Under rothbardian ethics it is possible to profit without contribution to production, and to exist entirely parasitically. ie: his ethics are parasitic.
-
Definition of "Pseudoscience"
DEFINITION: “PSEUDOSCIENCE” pseu·do·sci·ence ˌso͞odōˈsīəns noun: pseudoscience; plural noun: pseudosciences; noun: pseudo-science; plural noun: pseudo-sciences 1. is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method. [I] use the following criteria to determine whether something is a pseudoscience: 1) One must claim it is scientific 2) Yet the method does not adhere to the scientific method. That is the minimum criteria. The following criteria serve to further falsify claims: 3) (optional) Method does not produce results it claims to. 4) (optional) Is not or cannot be stated in operational language. 5) (optional) Is not or cannot be constrained by testable correspondence with reality. By these criteria Praxeology fails as a science, as all axiomatic systems must fail as sciences. However, it is possible to state that we can study the science of cooperation (economics) and as such produce theories that for deductive purposes we may treat axiomatically, although the results of that deduction must still be tested by correspondence with reality, and falsified. Emergent properties must be tested empirically, and experiential properties can be tested experientially, if articulated as human actions. For these reasons human cooperation can be termed a science, and we can construct a formal grammar of cooperation. Something akin to praxeology can be constructed as a formal logic of cooperation, but it will, as all axiomatic systems must be, constrained by correspondence with reality.
