[Y]ou know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights. See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that? Because it’s true. You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights, from those who would deny them.
Source: Original Site Post
-
The Immorality Of Pacifist Libertarianism
[P]acifist (peasant and merchant) libertarianism is analogous to begging at the foot of the state, trying to get PERMISSION to enjoy some liberty. Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism actively denies others the possibility of infringing upon liberty by the constant threat of violence. Or put in Propertarian terms, whining, whimpering, pleading, chastising and justifying are just excuses to do nothing to advance liberty and feel good about it, or relying upon ‘faith’ while waiting to get liberty at a discount, rather than pay the high cost of denying others access to your property. It’s just christian ‘waiting for the savior’ in secular language. We aren’t doing anything. The only reason it looks like we’ve moved the needle at all, is because everyone else is failing so badly – both the Cathedral and the Enlightenment are collapsing under the weight of democracy. [T]he source of liberty is the organized application of violence by every living should that desires it. And liberty is only earned by those willing to use violence to deny others the ability to infringe upon our liberty. The cause of moral intuition is the prohibition on free riding: cheating, and trying to get something at a discount at other’s expense. Pacifist libertarianism IS IMMORAL by that standard. [F]or millennia one gained property rights by fighting for them or committing to fight for them. That is the only means of possessing property rights – by obtaining them in exchange from others who are willing to fight for them. Everyone else is a free-rider. If they possess liberty. It is only because those willing to use violence to deny others access to property give it to them. That is a DESCRIPTIVE ethic. Rather than all the Continental nonsense that libertarians rely upon by taking cues from the obscurantism of the Marxists.
-
The Immorality Of Pacifist Libertarianism
[P]acifist (peasant and merchant) libertarianism is analogous to begging at the foot of the state, trying to get PERMISSION to enjoy some liberty. Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism actively denies others the possibility of infringing upon liberty by the constant threat of violence. Or put in Propertarian terms, whining, whimpering, pleading, chastising and justifying are just excuses to do nothing to advance liberty and feel good about it, or relying upon ‘faith’ while waiting to get liberty at a discount, rather than pay the high cost of denying others access to your property. It’s just christian ‘waiting for the savior’ in secular language. We aren’t doing anything. The only reason it looks like we’ve moved the needle at all, is because everyone else is failing so badly – both the Cathedral and the Enlightenment are collapsing under the weight of democracy. [T]he source of liberty is the organized application of violence by every living should that desires it. And liberty is only earned by those willing to use violence to deny others the ability to infringe upon our liberty. The cause of moral intuition is the prohibition on free riding: cheating, and trying to get something at a discount at other’s expense. Pacifist libertarianism IS IMMORAL by that standard. [F]or millennia one gained property rights by fighting for them or committing to fight for them. That is the only means of possessing property rights – by obtaining them in exchange from others who are willing to fight for them. Everyone else is a free-rider. If they possess liberty. It is only because those willing to use violence to deny others access to property give it to them. That is a DESCRIPTIVE ethic. Rather than all the Continental nonsense that libertarians rely upon by taking cues from the obscurantism of the Marxists.
-
The End Of Moral Intuitionism And The Rise Of Moral Realism
(meaningful) [M]ost philosophical debate degenerates to a recursive discourse on norms. That’s because human beings really enjoy the ease of introspection, and the self reinforcing reward of moral intuitionism. But if Propertarianism is correct, and I am pretty certain that it is, then moral truths can be expressed as purely rational arguments, and introspection merely tells you about your own reproductive strategy, class strategy, culture strategy, and cognitive biases. That means an end to moral intuitionism. Propertarianism allows us to produce a formal logic of ethics and morality, that denies us our cognitive biases and rational limitations. And that is why we need formal logics.
-
The End Of Moral Intuitionism And The Rise Of Moral Realism
(meaningful) [M]ost philosophical debate degenerates to a recursive discourse on norms. That’s because human beings really enjoy the ease of introspection, and the self reinforcing reward of moral intuitionism. But if Propertarianism is correct, and I am pretty certain that it is, then moral truths can be expressed as purely rational arguments, and introspection merely tells you about your own reproductive strategy, class strategy, culture strategy, and cognitive biases. That means an end to moral intuitionism. Propertarianism allows us to produce a formal logic of ethics and morality, that denies us our cognitive biases and rational limitations. And that is why we need formal logics.
-
The First Question Of Politics: Ternary Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethics Vs Binary Ghetto Ethics
(important) [T]he first question of politics (cooperation) is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? If we cooperate for mutual gain then I agree not to kill you and take your stuff. If you want to conduct a positive trade with me I will not kill you and take your stuff. If you try to blackmail me or cheat me or my friends and allies, then I will kill you and take your stuff. It is only rational not to kill you and take your stuff if you engage in mutually beneficial exchange. You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and violence. The logic of cooperation is ternary, not binary. It is only binary when I’m in the ghetto and the monarchy leaves us alone as long as we don’t engage in violence. The monarchy cannot trust either of us to tell the truth, so the monarchy limits its definition of crime to violence, while tolerating unethical and immoral behavior. But that is not a voluntary society. That is a ghetto within a monarchy. Just like Crusoe’s island is a ghetto bounded by the violence of the sea. But aristocracy, which possesses a WEALTH OF VIOLENCE is always in the proposition that voluntary exchange must be more rewarding than the application of violence, and that subjecting one’s self to criminal, immoral and unethical and conspiratorial is simply, always, and everywhere, unnecessary. So for the weak, the choice is between cooperation and non-cooperation, the choice for the aristocracy is between cooperation, non-cooperation, and violence – whichever is more rewarding. Rothbardians are engaged in a complex, obscurantist logical fallacy. Rothbardian anarcho capitalist ethics are PLAGUED with logical fallacies. It is, like Marxism, a rich and varied set of logical fallacies. But logical fallacies none the less. We don’t need the state. However, property rights as defined OR the NAP, are insufficient for the rational adoption of a voluntary society governed only by the rule of law, under the common law.
-
The First Question Of Politics: Ternary Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethics Vs Binary Ghetto Ethics
(important) [T]he first question of politics (cooperation) is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? If we cooperate for mutual gain then I agree not to kill you and take your stuff. If you want to conduct a positive trade with me I will not kill you and take your stuff. If you try to blackmail me or cheat me or my friends and allies, then I will kill you and take your stuff. It is only rational not to kill you and take your stuff if you engage in mutually beneficial exchange. You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and violence. The logic of cooperation is ternary, not binary. It is only binary when I’m in the ghetto and the monarchy leaves us alone as long as we don’t engage in violence. The monarchy cannot trust either of us to tell the truth, so the monarchy limits its definition of crime to violence, while tolerating unethical and immoral behavior. But that is not a voluntary society. That is a ghetto within a monarchy. Just like Crusoe’s island is a ghetto bounded by the violence of the sea. But aristocracy, which possesses a WEALTH OF VIOLENCE is always in the proposition that voluntary exchange must be more rewarding than the application of violence, and that subjecting one’s self to criminal, immoral and unethical and conspiratorial is simply, always, and everywhere, unnecessary. So for the weak, the choice is between cooperation and non-cooperation, the choice for the aristocracy is between cooperation, non-cooperation, and violence – whichever is more rewarding. Rothbardians are engaged in a complex, obscurantist logical fallacy. Rothbardian anarcho capitalist ethics are PLAGUED with logical fallacies. It is, like Marxism, a rich and varied set of logical fallacies. But logical fallacies none the less. We don’t need the state. However, property rights as defined OR the NAP, are insufficient for the rational adoption of a voluntary society governed only by the rule of law, under the common law.
-
Rothbard As Destroyer Of Liberty?
[S]o is liberty defined by voluntary exchange? Or is liberty defined by suppressing all in-group involuntary transfer? I’ll help you: it’s the latter. Just like the Golden and Silver Rules, these two propositions lead to vastly different conclusions and their application leads to vastly different societies. The gnostics were right about ‘Jehova’ and I’m right about ‘Rothbardianism’. You couldn’t invent a better way to destroy liberty than a pseudoscience that encouraged passionate devotion to a false theory as a distraction from a scientific answer to a true theory. “You oughtta’ think on that a bit” before you repeat one more rothbardian falsehood as a prayer for liberty. Rothbardian ethics are immoral and parasitic, and the NAP is immoral, unethical and socially destructive. If there is a hell, Jehova is laughing at you every time you quote the NAP.
-
Rothbard As Destroyer Of Liberty?
[S]o is liberty defined by voluntary exchange? Or is liberty defined by suppressing all in-group involuntary transfer? I’ll help you: it’s the latter. Just like the Golden and Silver Rules, these two propositions lead to vastly different conclusions and their application leads to vastly different societies. The gnostics were right about ‘Jehova’ and I’m right about ‘Rothbardianism’. You couldn’t invent a better way to destroy liberty than a pseudoscience that encouraged passionate devotion to a false theory as a distraction from a scientific answer to a true theory. “You oughtta’ think on that a bit” before you repeat one more rothbardian falsehood as a prayer for liberty. Rothbardian ethics are immoral and parasitic, and the NAP is immoral, unethical and socially destructive. If there is a hell, Jehova is laughing at you every time you quote the NAP.
-
Imperialism (Controversial)
[I]mperialism is defensive when cooperation is structurally impossible. But if cooperation is possible it is preferable. Even then the goal is merely institutional development so that cooperation is possible. Imperialism like violence is an amoral question. Extraction is not. Predation is not. Parasitism is not. There is a vast difference between teaching people reading, writing, arithmetic, accounting, property rights, and the common law, so that you can cooperate with them rather than either conquer or displace them, or parasitically using them. And since parasitism is a way of life in primitive cultures -which is why they are primitive – it is a very long and difficult lesson to teach them. I don’t like imperialism. I don’t like empires at all. I do like cooperative production and trade. Respect for others’ property today will mean others may at least attempt to respect your property tomorrow. So I would have to separate cooperative imperialism from parasitic imperialism. I just have no idea as yet how to guarantee the implementation of it except as containment and habituated exchange.