Theme: Coercion

http://vulgarlibertarians.com/against-the-basic-income-guarantee-2/MATT’S CONFUSIONS (CRITICISM)

[QUOTE]It is not, as you claim a “competing theory of justice” to the libertarian one. It is a theory of human welfare. I invoke it not to challenge the libertarian theory of justice, but as way of providing some content to the idea that the government should ensure that nobody is so harmed by its acts of injustice that they are unable to live a minimally decent life. There’s no dishonesty here on my part. Just an apparent confusion on yours. – Matt Zwolinski [/QUOTE]

MATT’S CONFUSIONS

1. Yes it is Matt. Your Rawlsian restatement is precisely a competing theory of justice. The libertarian theory of justice expressly PROHIBITS statements on ends, stating that the ONLY justice is voluntary exchange.

2. There is only one POSSIBLE universal moral statement : voluntary cooperation for mutual gain in that which can be acquired – from the most concrete to the most experiential. And its corollary: the prohibition on parasitism in all it’s forms (criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial action) the most common of which is free riding.

3. Therefore the ONLY POSSIBLE moral institutions that we can create are those that extend the opportunities for voluntary exchange – constantly expanding our cooperation on means, and letting catallaxy determine SCIENTIFICALLY through EXPERIMENTAL TRIAL AND ERROR, the most desirable ends.

[QUOTE]There is no “issue of collective obligations” here. A criminal never gains the right to rob others to pay his debts. That would only create more victims who must then be compensated. Calling such further theft “morally required” is just amazing.– JesseForgoine[/QUOTE]

MATTS CONFUSIONS

1. No. A corporation that we shall call ‘the government’ can never incur debts on the actions of individuals in its employ – especially if there are no individuals in its employ.

2. Yes. A corporation that we shall call ‘the government’ can incur debts on the actions of the polity as collectively exercised by vote.

3. Even if exercised by vote (of shareholder/citizens), the fees should be paid exclusively by those who mandated it (voted in favor of or against, the action). This eliminates moral hazard.

4. The libertarian solution to this problem is to require prosecutors to carry malfeasance insurance. This insurance would be very high. And the insurance companies would do a far better job of policing justice than does justice itself – (spoken as a one-time justice department employee.)

So, no, MATT IS CONFUSED as we can see from his initial proposition that some arbitrary statement of welfare determined by some arbitrary person or group, rather than scientifically determined by the market, under the assumption that liberty and voluntary cooperation – cooperation on means – is the optimum human welfare, versus the involuntary, forcible extraction of rents to achieve a messianic, unscientific (foolhardy) ‘end’ defined spuriously as ‘welfare’.

SOLVING MATT’S CONFUSION

I’ve argued elsewhere that the (rothbardian) libertarian assumption that individuals should pay the high cost of respecting property rights, forgoing free riding, and forgoing demand for state intervention, and forgoing rents, is a violation of property rights.

When our aristocratic egalitarian ethic (liberty) evolved in prehistory, it was because we have almost all been private property owners, and heads of families. We were marginally indifferent in our production. Heroism (raiding and trading) were the only ways of dramatically increasing one’s wealth relative to the productivity of the land that bound all others.

But under industrial consumer capitalism, our labors are no longer of much value to the organization of production. In fact, increasingly, smaller numbers of people will be required to organize production. The current trend will continue, and we can’t think of a logical reason why it wouldn’t.

Therefore at present, more than a third of people are either present in the work force, or available to the work force, but unskilled and incapable of using the tools necessary to participate in the art of the production of goods and services.

So Keynesian models that attempt to reach full employment are little more than a logical error.

However, we are still equally capable of performing the work of constructing the normative commons that makes organizing, executing and distributing production, possible at low transaction cost.

As such, it is only right and just that we compensate people for respect of property rights, and policing the prohibition on parasitism i all its forms that creates the high trust necessary for us to conduct highly productive efforts in every niche possible.

So my argument, in Propertarianism, is that among the logical errors of the enlightenment were (a) that we were equally capable of participation in production (b) that labor was the primary problem of production when in fact, voluntarily organizing production through natural incentives was the primary problem (c) that because of these errors we assumed that there was no cost to respecting prohibitions on parasitism – when logically it is a very high cost for the unproductive to respect prohibitions on parasitism (free riding, criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial behavior.).

So it is a violation of property rights NOT to pay people to police the normative commons (and physical commons for that matter) and yet expect them to refrain from engaging in parasitism – the most dangerous parasitism being their natural demand for the state as a vehicle for extracting rents.

The question is whether participation in the market itself is sufficient compensation for that respect. Whereas that’s non logical since those without a way to obtain money cannot participate in the market.

DESTROY THE STATE

Pay people to respect property rights. Dont’ pay people who don’t. If you are ‘hired’ to respect property rights you get paid to do it, and you lose your job if you don’t. If you’re hired for this job you can get an employment contract. Pay unproductive people to share the interests of the productive people in eliminating immoral conspiratorial activity (the state), in favor of moral cooperative activity (property rights).

It is better to fight for the attention of consumers than it is to fight the state.

MATT ZWOLINSKI

Matt is, unfortunately, a product of his environment. And he is confused about the cause of moral sentiments. Actually he’s confused about a lot of things. But that is why we have the BHL’s – because they have no rational arguments, only moral sentiments defended by weak attempts at amateurish emotional, non rational, unscientific

WHY HOSTILITY

The source of liberty is the organized application of violence by a diligent minority to suppress parasitic free riding so that only voluntary cooperation remains.

If we want our liberty we must not only provide institutional solutions, but we must continue the long term fight against unscientific nonsense in various pseudo-moral, pseudo-rational and pseudo-scientific forms.

And the BHL’s are yet another form of emotional mysticism, distracting us from discovering and obtaining the liberty that our ancestors created, and that we have incrementally lost.

Nice people are a nice thing to share space with. However, nice people who are merely nice, but also WRONG, are just damaging to mankind. Rawls was damaging. And the BHL’s are just adding artificial flavoring to the mix.