1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory many categories of resources, and evolved to demonstrate constant acquisitiveness of those resources. 2) Property: The scope of those things they act upon, or choose not to act upon, in anticipation of obtaining as inventory (a store of value), constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.* (See Butler Schaeffer) “That which and organism defends.” 3) Value: Human emotions evolved to reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.* As such nearly all emotions can be expressed in terms of reactions to property. (imposed costs here, pre-moral, but also pre-cooperation, and only defense and retaliation, not cooperation) 4) Non-Conflict: That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they evolved to intuit as their property, and demonstrate this intuition by defense of their inventory, and by their punishment of transgressors. 5) Cooperative Production: That which humans act in concert with one another to produce. (Important take-away is that the purpose of cooperation is material and reproductive production.) 6) Moral (cooperative) Intuitions(instincts): Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding by members with whom one cooperates in production and reproduction. (This is where free riding enters.) 7) Distribution of Intuitions by Reproductive Strategy: Moral intuitions vary in intensity to suit one’s reproductive strategy. This intensity and distribution of moral intuition varies between males and females, as well as between classes and between groups. 8) Variation By Family Structure: Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production. 9) Resolution of Disputes: Property rights were developed in law as the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity (corporation) agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment. Conversely, any possible property rights not expressed, the community (corporation) is unwilling to adjudicate, restore or punish, or has not yet discovered the need to construct. 10) Instrumentation: Property rights are necessary for the instrumental measurement of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in human emotional states, and our inability to determine truth from falsehood. And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state. 11) Family: As a general rule, as the division of knowledge and labor increases, so must the atomicity of property rights, and as a consequence, the size of the family must decline {Consanguineous, Punaluan, Pairing (Serial Marriage), Hetaeristic, Traditional, Stem, Nuclear, Absolute Nuclear}. 12) Transaction Costs: As the division of labor increases, relationships increase in distance from kin, increase in anonymity, decrease common interest, and the incentive to seize opportunities rather than adhere to agreements increases. This decrease creates the problem of trust, which increases costs of insuring any agreement is fulfilled, and decreases the overall number of possible agreements and the number of participants in any structure of production. 13) Trust (ethics in production): As a general rule, for the size of the family to decrease, and division of labor to increase in multi-part *complexity* then trust must increase, and trust can only increase with expansion of property rights to include prohibitions on unethical actions. Mere ostracization, boycotting and reputation are insufficient to preserve agreements (contracts). 14) Moral Competition (ethics in political production): (morals property rights, cheating) As a general rule, the scope of moral prohibitions expressed as property rights, must increase to limit demand for authority. 15) Demand for Authority: As a general rule, if a delay in the production of property rights evolves, then demand for authority will fill the vacuum with some form of authority to either suppress retaliation (conflict) or to prevent circumstances leading to conflict, or both.
Theme: Cooperation
-
(regarding previous post) The Libertine(Rothbardian) argument is to abandon all
(regarding previous post)
The Libertine(Rothbardian) argument is to abandon all consideration of the competitive production of commons and to return to a low trust levantine polity of pervasively unethical and immoral conditions. (Rothbard, Rockwell, and Block).
However, the propertarian solution is to eliminate the possibility of rents and free riding on the production of commons using competing houses and private production of commons, by requiring contracts, strict construction and original intent, operational calculability, transparency and universal standing. (Methods and procedures that are common in businesses world wide).
I am having a very hard time determining what commons can honestly be demonstrated to be victims of free riding, even if many are subject to privatization and socialization. This is well covered in the literature, and as far as I know, regulation and rent seeking are the cause of most difficulties.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 13:26:00 UTC
-
Women are wonderful but they come and go. Men are loyal and remain. We must take
Women are wonderful but they come and go.
Men are loyal and remain.
We must take better care of one another.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-19 20:43:00 UTC
-
THE MEANING OF “AUSTRIAN” (as I understand it today.) (draft) Note: I’ve wanted
THE MEANING OF “AUSTRIAN” (as I understand it today.)
(draft)
Note: I’ve wanted to put this together for some time, since I have some significant issues with the way that Boettke has written it – even if he has written the best to date. I believe this form of articulation is more analytical and less romantic. But this is still just a draft. And each bullet needs a paragraph of explanation. – Thanks.
VALUE
1) Value as incentive to act.
2) Subjectivity of Value.
3) Marginal Value.
4) Opportunity Cost.
5) Exchange as only test of value and therefore production or consumption
6) Morality as voluntary exchange. (Propertarianism’s addition: productive, fully informed warrantied, exchange that is free of externality.)
VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATION OF PRODUCTION
1) Property. Without property one cannot choose between alternative actions available to him.
2) Commodity money allows for the evolution of prices.
3) Prices function as information about what others want and need.
4) Information provides incentives. Prices make actions and resources commensurable, so that complex choices and planning are possible.
5) With Property,Money,Prices,Information and Incentives, individuals can voluntarily choose to participate in production.
6) If many people possess this choice, a polity can evolve the Voluntary Organization of Production. Without these choices, people cannot voluntarily organize production, and must be involuntarily organized. (It is not clear that all people prefer the voluntary organization of production, even if they prefer the rewards of living under a voluntary organization of production.)
THE ORGANIZATION AND REORGANIZATION OF VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS
1) Increases in participation in voluntary organization of production increase the division of knowledge and labor and by consequence their participation produces variations in productivity and prices.
2) People Evolve complex organizations from Sustainable Patterns of Specialization and Trade.
3) Changes in preferences cause alteration of the existing sustainable patterns of specialization and trade (Reorganization).
4) Innovation (Discovery) provides incentives to alter the existing sets of preferences, and the existing organizations of production to satisfy those preferences.
5) Changes in the scarcity of resources (Shocks) alter prices and by consequence alter preferences, and the existing organizations of production change in order to satisfy those changes in preferences.
6) Changes in innovation, resources and preferences create opportunities for the satisfaction of preferences.
7) People, and organizations of people, demonstrate flocking and schooling in response to opportunities.
8) Business cycles evolve from the exploitation and exhaustion of opportunities available in the current organization of production, and the evolution of new opportunities in new organizations of production, and the need for the reorganization of the existing patterns of specialization into new organizations of production. (ie: equilibration is a fallacy of numeracy.)
INTERFERENCE IN THE INFORMATION SYSTEM, ORGANIZATION, AND CAPITAL
1) The state distorts information under Keynesian employment policy by flooding the market with cheap money and misinforming individuals as to what actions they should take.
2) Unnecessary shortages of money also misinform individuals as to what actions that they should take.
3) Economists and philosophers have not solved the problem of supplying money independent of shortages, (although it appears possible by increasing taxes along with interest rates).
4) The cost of distortion is an opportunity cost between one possible set of affairs and another possible set of affairs. We just can never recover a lost set of affairs.
5) Monetary prices may be neutral in the long run, but distortion of those prices produces externalities that are non-neutral.
6) Distortions impact all capital Human capital (skills), Reproductive capital (family structure and gene pool), Normative Capital (inter-generational habits, values, traditions, myths), and Institutional Capital (Formal institutions, including the law). While economic activity may be easily quantifiable, accounting for gains or losses in the remaining forms of capital are not.
PROPERTARIAN EXTENSIONS TO AUSTRIAN THEORY
1) The first means of production is reproduction, and is the purpose for all other production.
2) The organization of reproduction and the organization of economic production are interdependent, and for one to change so must the other.
3) Moral rules are those that prevent parasitism: free riding, involuntary transfer (fraud), and imposed cost (theft and violence), and family structure heavily influences moral rules, which only property rights and law can change.
4) Voluntary exchange requires the exchange is productive, fully informed, warrantied, and free of externality.
5) Trust is the word we use for the feeling we have, when transaction costs (risks) of free riding, rent seeking, fraud, theft and violence are eliminated – leaving only error in forecasting of demand as the possible risk.
6) Trust is developed by increasing the scope of property rights to exclude all actions that make free riding possible, and therefore eliminate transaction costs.
7) The common (organic) law of property rights, being specific positive assertions of the general negative prohibition on parasitism in order to make cooperation rational, is the only means of scientifically (experimentally) evolving law that corresponds with morality.
8) It is not clear that savers have a moral claim to appreciation of the value of currency from saving, albeit they do have a claim to against inflation of the currency. It is quite hard to argue otherwise.
OPPOSITIES: AUSTRIAN (aristocratic) VS PSEUDO-AUSTRIAN (cosmopolitan).
Austrian theory is broken into two branches: (a)The Cosmopolitan (Jewish) Branch (Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe) and (b) the Aristocratic (Hayekian) Branch (Hayek/Popper and as far as I know, myself).
It may be novel idea or not, but the difference is largely in the Aristocratic use of the commons and high trust as a competitive strategy, and the cosmopolitan attempt to privatize all commons, and eschew high trust in favor of low trust, as a means of evolutionary strategy that COMPETES with the high trust producers of commons. In other words, the Misesian/Rothbardian if not Hoppeian Austrian branch produces behavior that eschews all commons. For these reasons, the Misesian/Rothbardian/Hoppeian branch is not an Austrian branch but a cosmopolitan competitor specifically articulated as an attack on the high trust aristocratic commons.
In the early 2000’s I had assumed that I could reunite Mises and Hayek, because I understood that Hayek was speaking politically and Mises individually. But I did not at the time understand that these are competing and mutually exclusive social strategies. That the purpose of the Cosmopolitan strategy was to preserve levantine low trust, and to privatize all possible commons. That the aristocratic strategy is to produce commons because no other group has been able to.
Hayek may have challenged the view among academics that fascism was a capitalist reaction against socialism. He argued that fascism and socialism had common roots in central economic planning and empowering the state over the individual. But just as we must mobilize one another for war, fascism was an effort to mobilize us against communism. So while it may be true that fascism and socialism possess common roots, but it is also true that war is not a process of exploration as is capitalism – it is a deliberate concentration of all production into fighting. And the fascist war against communism most likely saved the west.
So, these two branches are not tastes. They are polar opposite propositions. They ask us to choose between levantine low trust morality and aristocratic high trust morality. And that is an easy choice.
Only warriors can produce aristocracy.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 14:15:00 UTC
-
THE TERNARY LOGIC OF COOPERATION 1) The ternary logic of cooperation consists of
THE TERNARY LOGIC OF COOPERATION
1) The ternary logic of cooperation consists of three possible states: Violence(predation), Cooperation (exchange), and Avoidance (boycott); and cooperation, whether rational or pre-rational, is only beneficial if productive and non-parasitic (is absent of free riding/imposed cost). Even the advocacy of free riding, Involuntary transfer and imposed costs is an act of fraud.
2) We have invented a series of incrementally complex logical instruments that permit us to isolate properties and make comparisons, an without which we cannot make comparisons. All forms of ‘calculation’ (in the widest sense) depend upon these
a) Properties (identities) and Categories (sets) : Logic (description)
b) Counting (multiples) and Naming (numbering) : Arithmetic (quantities)
c) Measures and Ratios : Mathematics (relations)
d) Causal Relations : Physics (causality)
e) Forecasting (time) and Planning (acting) : The Logic of Action
f) Cooperation : The Ternary Logic of Cooperation (production)
The Ternary Logic of Cooperation constitutes the missing ‘logic’ of cooperation.
Western Philosophy is first and foremost, in itself, the logic of rational action – the tools we use to rationalize action in the world. I have abandoned the attempt to restate praxeology and abandoned the term praxeology as unrecoverable, given both the ideological commitment of its adherents, the logical and empirical failure of misesian praxeology as pseudoscientific, and the absurdly primitive levantine immorality of rothbardianism. So at this point I’ve decided to go forward using the “Ternary Logic of Cooperation” and the in-group prohibition on free riding and the out-group restatement of free riding as a prohibition on imposed costs.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-03 08:35:00 UTC
-
OF COOPERATION, NOT JUSTICE Want to thank Skye Stewart for sharing Friedman’s bo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHTj0iccdVM&feature=youtube_gdata+-+Video+Tube+for+YouTube+-+AndroidLAW OF COOPERATION, NOT JUSTICE
Want to thank Skye Stewart for sharing Friedman’s book and video with me. I’d originally thought it was a statement of the obvious for those of us with economic backgrounds. But for the rest of the world, the importance of the fallacy of justice as taught in law, and the importance of economic thought in replacing that fallacy, is probably as central to the reformation of political thinking as is the fact that all rights are reducible to property rights, and that rights can only be obtained in exchange.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
Source date (UTC): 2014-09-01 04:39:00 UTC
-
WE NEED ONE HUNDRED My job, I think, is to solve the problem of western ethics a
WE NEED ONE HUNDRED
My job, I think, is to solve the problem of western ethics as an evolutionary strategy, formally, and if possible reduce it to aphorisms. I’ve had very good advice to leave dumbing it down so to speak, to others.
But I always keep both Einstein and Darwin in mind: for all the people who talk of Einstein, very few understand the central idea in context of the history of ‘thinking’ rather than the history of science. And Darwin to this day is constantly misunderstood even by people who claim to. Relativity(invariance) shouldn’t have been an intellectual problem, and directionlessness (outside of complexity) shouldn’t be either. Science as a discipline is not even understood by philosophers of science.
As far as I can tell one or two humans define something useful, some small fraction of a percent of people understand it, and talk about it. Some slightly larger fraction of people teach and employ the application of it. And everyone else treats it as a given because someone can demonstrate the application in some way or another.
When you talk about ethics, and the institutions that enforce ethical action, and the philosophy that defends those propositions, all that matters are the institutions, the few guardians of them, and everyone else runs on Epstein’s ‘Simple Rules’: aphorisms in my case. They have to. They don’t have any other choice. Understanding at any depth is not only impossible for most but unnecessary. Imitation provides what understanding fails to.
So when I say ‘understanding is overrated’ that’s what I mean. Knowledge of construction is necessary for truth statements, but knowledge of use (application), and the recognition that the conceptual tools work for purposes intended, is all that is POSSIBLE, for all but a few members of a society. I dont confuse understanding with utility, acceptance, or at least non-rejection.
I just need 100 people (aspie-leaning guys preferably) who can:
(a) to argue aristocratic egalitarianism as the only possible source of liberty, and the necessity and utility of violence for the construction of good.
(b) argue in the propertarian method: using economic language to reduce all of ethics to the grammar of voluntary exchanges.
(c) argue propertarian ethics: the spectrum of free riding, imposed cost and involuntary transfer.
(d) argue the structures of the family, production, and property rights in the development of trust and reduction of transaction costs, in creating the demand for, or lack of demand for the state.
(e) at least hobble their way through testimonial truth, operationalism. empiricism, and instrumentalism. The deeper arguments here are fairly difficult I think.
There are plenty of sub-arguments, but if people can master the (bullshit) of rothbardian drivel, or argue with the (nonsense) of conservative romanticism, or spew the various forms of (lying, deceitful) postmodernism, socialism, and marxism, then arguing the propertarianism instead of errors, fallacies and lies ought to be fairly easy.
Source date (UTC): 2014-08-27 04:24:00 UTC
-
Clarification: The Ethical Spectrum
CLARIFYING THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM
[R]oman has suggested that I try to clarify:
(a) Ethical statements are truths, not Preferences.
(b) Some groups prefer MORE moral and ethical societies, and some LESS moral and ethical societies, depending upon the homogeneity of the group.
(c) Criminal, Ethical, Moral and Conspiratorial prohibitions constitute a spectrum from the most personally experiential to the most distant and indirect. An homogenous society can prohibit many forms of unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial conduct. However, heterogeneous societies do not benefit from enforcing ethical moral and conspiratorial prohibitions, since this prohibits inter-group parasitism.
(d) Humans compete by cooperating. Even though we are cooperating we are still competing. We are just competing productively rather than destructively. He who breeds wins.
-
Clarification: The Ethical Spectrum
CLARIFYING THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM
[R]oman has suggested that I try to clarify:
(a) Ethical statements are truths, not Preferences.
(b) Some groups prefer MORE moral and ethical societies, and some LESS moral and ethical societies, depending upon the homogeneity of the group.
(c) Criminal, Ethical, Moral and Conspiratorial prohibitions constitute a spectrum from the most personally experiential to the most distant and indirect. An homogenous society can prohibit many forms of unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial conduct. However, heterogeneous societies do not benefit from enforcing ethical moral and conspiratorial prohibitions, since this prohibits inter-group parasitism.
(d) Humans compete by cooperating. Even though we are cooperating we are still competing. We are just competing productively rather than destructively. He who breeds wins.
-
What Constitutes Ethics?
ETHICS: IMPROVING FUZZY LANGUAGE
—“To be correct, ethical memes need to be universal. It cannot be right or wrong only for some but not for all. But all mere values are personal, but a value is only like a belief in that respect.”— David M.
Excellent. I’d suggest improving this a bit.
First:
“All true ethical propositions must apply universally. All preferential rules need not apply universally. All preferences must exist as individual opinions. All ethical (and moral) rules must exist independent of individual opinions. “Second:
The term “meme” refers to the rate of involuntary distribution. An ethical rule may be stated mimetically or not. While it is certainly more efficacious that an ethical rule be stated mimetically, the truth of the proposition holds whether it is stated mimetically or not.For example, most false moral statements constructed by the Frankfurt school and the postmodernists as well as many of the pseudoscientific arguments of twentieth century social science, appear to be ethical, but are not.
Third:
Worse, justifications for unethical and immoral actions spread fastest because they allow for rapid returns.CONCLUSION
So (a) ethical rules, if true, are universal. (b) The memetic construction of an idea has no correspondence with its truth. In fact since ethical rules require us to forgo consumption, in general, they impose a cost upon us, and therefore they are constantly met with friction. This is why the common law must always evolve: we find a new way of ‘cheating’ and then must describe that form of cheating as illegal. Rules follow inventions.Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.