POLYMORALISM AND COMMONS
[A]nd of course there are other options: Land can be owned by no one. Land can be owned by one person. Land can be owned by a group of contractual shareholders. Land can be owned by normative shareholders.
The problem of a commons lies in determining use of a resource that CAN be consumed. However not all resources that are are useful can be consumed tragically. Some resources, and perhaps the most valuable resources are those which we agree NOT to consume. As such, those things we prohibit consumption of. All property consists of prohibitions. Commons consist of universal prohibitions. The tragedy of the commons applies ONLY to unelectable consumption, and the cost of administering unelectable consumption.
Shareholder agreements universally construct commons, but disallow consumption of those commons except as distributed under the terms of the agreement. So not only can we produce commons by shareholder agreement, nearly all commons are so produced. The problem is not the production of commons, or the constitution of commons or the existence of commons, but that statists license the consumption of commons, and as hoppe has illustrated, distribute the commons (consume it) rather than save it (as did monarchs).
Parks for example serve as monuments which produce ‘goods’ indefinitely if they are not consumed. We merely need to prevent consumption of the land, in order for the good produced by parks to persist. Of the many kinds of monuments, it is one of the hardest to prevent the consumption of. Because it is the easiest to consume.
Just as property rights, rule of law, and other norms are expensive monuments to construct, and to persist, without consuming them. And they can be consumed, easily, if we do not prevent their consumption.
Many norms require high constant costs of observation. Property as an informal institution does. Property rights are merely a legal definition of the norm of property. But the norm of property is produced as are all commons, by requiring a contribution (sacrifice of opportunity) and teh forcible prevention of consumption by that which is not normatively defined.
This is inescapable since property itself as an institution must be so constructed.
THE “LIBERTINE” LIBERTARIANS
[T]he “Libertines” simply try to license unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior by defining away norms. And while some norms may be arbitrary (signals or rituals), those norms that construct and persist commons are not.
Cosmopolitans just created an elaborate system of pseudo-rationalism to circumvent ethics and morality, in order to justify poly moral in-group-vs out-group morality that renders commons impossible to construct.
However, the Western competitive advantage over the rest of the world was the trust started by the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, which allowed the aristocracy to form, and which all others in society attempted to imitate not only to obtain status as a reproductive improvement, but because trust did in fact, non-symbolically, but functionally, produce consistently higher returns than non-trust.
Game. Set. Match. The end of the pseudoscientific century. Libertinism. Cosmopolitanism. Rothbardiansm. Misesianism are just like socialism and neoconservatism, cosmopolitan systems of pseudoscientific propaganda imitating the framing and overloading of abrahamic authoritarianism. Elaborate verbalisms.
(I have pretty much put a fork in it. Rothbard isn’t just wrong. It’s worse than that.)
Curt