[I]n writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized.
Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.
Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate.
But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).
[I]n writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized.
Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.
Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate.
But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).
LAWS PROHIBIT INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER – CONTRACTS EXCHANGE RIGHTS.
In writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized.
Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.
Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate.
But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).
Cosmopolitan Libertarians (meaning zero-commons advocates) do not perceive the commons as in their reproductive interests, so they reject paying for them. Mostly because they are rejects. It’s logical.
Anglo libertarians (meaning advocates of commons free of perverse incentives), or what we call ‘small government, classical liberals’ are not rejects, and do not object to paying for commons. They object to predation, parasitism, commons that create perverse incentives.
>>> That is called “the modern regulatory nation-state”, not “libertarians.”
Curt Doolittle
Actually no. Rothbardian ethics (Cosmopolitan Libertinism) circumvent not only all physical, but all normative commons consequent to intersubjectively verifiable property. As walter block and Rothbard argue, blackmail, abuse of asymmetric information, externality, and no promise of warranty are central to the libertarian ethical system. Period.
In other words, Rothbardian ethics are the ethics of the ghetto: the low trust society of the ghetto and levant. Rothbard advanced Jewish ghetto ethics (separatism) as a substitute for anglo Saxon liberty (high trust and extensive commons). And while it is possible to use Rothbard’s ethical system for inter-state law (separatists), it is insufficient for intra-group law, since low trust increases both transaction costs and demand for authoritarian intervention to suppress retaliation for actions that invoke retaliation.
So, no, it’s not an opinion, it’s merely fact. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic, and since they encourage parasitism, predatory, and non-rational, since demand for the state is equal to the lack of suppression (means of resolution) for impositions of costs both physical, institutional and normative.
That’s just empirical. People retaliate. People pay high costs to retaliate.
That’s because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding, so we evolved altruistic punishment in order to prevent disintegration of cooperation by the production of perverse incentives. This desire to retaliate on one hand and invest on the other is called our ‘moral intuitions’.
Rothbardianism is objectively, rationally, empirically, immoral.
Can you imagine the rebirth of the Civic Society if we had universal standing in the defense of truth telling, in matters of the informational commons?
Can you imagine how many people would sue for harm to the commons?
(organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding).
[T]he logic of the Incremental Suppression of Free Riding via the evolution of the Common Law.
1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost.
2) Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation.
3) Cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding.
4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment) – they protect the institution by severe policing of cheaters.
5) Rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding).
6) Prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict.
7) Prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights”.
8) Community member (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws.
9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important)
10) High trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival.
11) As a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for tyranny and redistribution.
[A]ristocracy, Egalitarianism, Morality, Nomocracy, Meritocracy, Science, and Eugenic Evolution are mutually dependent.
The diagram shows the incremental suppression of parasitism starting from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest.
Only the west succeeded in developing the norm of truth. And without truth telling we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law.
Truth matters above all else. Pseudoscience is just Babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes. And this new emperor is naked also.
Truth is enough to rescue the west. Truth is enough.
(organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding).
[T]he logic of the Incremental Suppression of Free Riding via the evolution of the Common Law.
1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost.
2) Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation.
3) Cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding.
4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment) – they protect the institution by severe policing of cheaters.
5) Rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding).
6) Prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict.
7) Prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights”.
8) Community member (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws.
9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important)
10) High trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival.
11) As a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for tyranny and redistribution.
[A]ristocracy, Egalitarianism, Morality, Nomocracy, Meritocracy, Science, and Eugenic Evolution are mutually dependent.
The diagram shows the incremental suppression of parasitism starting from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest.
Only the west succeeded in developing the norm of truth. And without truth telling we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law.
Truth matters above all else. Pseudoscience is just Babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes. And this new emperor is naked also.
Truth is enough to rescue the west. Truth is enough.
WE DON’T NEED A MONOPOLY PRODUCER OF COMMONS. WE NEED A MARKET FOR COMMONS AND RULE OF LAW
(worth repeating) (edited for clarity)
The state under rule of law, is a monopoly. But any complete and internally consistent logic that is also externally correspondent, existentially possible, and objectively moral, is a monopolistic definition, by necessity. So it’s interesting that if law is scientifically constructed then it’s a monopoly by consequence of logical necessity, not choice.
The ‘state’ under rule of law is just the body of law and the institutional process of applying it by the judiciary. It’s a tool for the resolution of disputes only. or more precisely, for the suppression of parasitism.
The ‘government’ under Propertarianism is close to a misnomer. A Propertarian government cannot make laws, only contracts. As such functions as a market for the production of commons. In that market, we can construct contracts between peoples willing to conduct exchanges. In assenting to those contracts, you don’t have to agree with another person or group’s proposition – there is no need for your approval, so your assent can’t be ‘bought’. Instead, you can only dissent by stating how it’s an imposition of costs upon those who don’t want it, and that accusation must stand legal (Propertarian) scrutiny. Just as any other person in any other walk of life can object to the imposition of costs.
There is no need for monopoly production of commons. And therefore no need for majority rule. All laws are produced outside of the ‘government’ (commons builders). The only monopoly necessary is that of the law, just as the only monopoly in the logic of relations is mathematics. And that monopoly is purely logical.
So there is no need to create a parasitic monopoly bureaucracy for the production of commons.
a) politicians are parasitic.
b) the bureaucracy is parasitic,
c) the industrial rent seekers are parasitic.
d) the redistribution seekers are parasitic.
BUT
To civilize man (suppress his free riding,and force him to produce in the market to survive) we create central bureaucracies that suppress family and local rents, then centralize rents, and use those profits to pay to civilize man and to eliminate the local middlemen.
To further civilize man we now eliminate the central bureaucracy and rely entirely on the common interests in suppressing the emergence of statism (monopoly) using rule of law., under the common law, under the total prohibition on parasitism, directly or indirectly, by positive expression of property rights.
