Theme: Cooperation

  • 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.

  • Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans

    [T]he intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules: 0) Private property 1) Voluntary Exchange 2) Symmetry and Warranty* 3) Prohibition on Externality* 4) Requirement for Value Added* 5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding. 6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution. Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws): 7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law) 8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.) 9) The right of exclusion (ostracization). [T]hese last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft). High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods. As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust. As Such, 1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts, 2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts 3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts. As Such, A Common Law System Can Function Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible. Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts. Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE. 1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable. 2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable 3) Measurements render relations commensurable 4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable. 5) Money renders goods and services commensurable 6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable

  • Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans

    [T]he intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules: 0) Private property 1) Voluntary Exchange 2) Symmetry and Warranty* 3) Prohibition on Externality* 4) Requirement for Value Added* 5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding. 6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution. Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws): 7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law) 8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.) 9) The right of exclusion (ostracization). [T]hese last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft). High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods. As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust. As Such, 1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts, 2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts 3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts. As Such, A Common Law System Can Function Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible. Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts. Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE. 1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable. 2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable 3) Measurements render relations commensurable 4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable. 5) Money renders goods and services commensurable 6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable

  • The Future Of Economics And Cooperative Science

    (interesting) [I] doubt that economics will ever evolve to be predictive, since we would adapt to any prediction. I do not doubt that economics will evolve to be almost universally descriptive. or at least sufficiently so that further inquiry won’t provide additional knowledge about mankind and human behavior. I **DO** believe that we can construct a science of COOPERATION instead of a science of ‘economics’. I think this categorization of cooperation as economic has taken root, and it may be impossible to fix at this point. However, the study of economic activity is the use of easily recorded economic data to capture the demonstrated behavior and preferences of human beings better than any other form of test can possibly do. But the science we are constructing through economics, cognitive science, and experimental psychology, is the the science of COOPERATION. That science, for all intents and purposes has yielded, and will yield, only one fundamental set of principles. And that single fundamental set of principles will undoubtably be categorized as what we USED to call, “POLITICAL ECONOMY”. [B]ecause all human cooperation requires institutions that facilitate organization of invention, production, distribution and consumption by voluntary means, while at the same time prohibiting free riding in all it’s forms: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest. As such, the science of cooperation, including:

    • The Future Of Economics And Cooperative Science

      (interesting) [I] doubt that economics will ever evolve to be predictive, since we would adapt to any prediction. I do not doubt that economics will evolve to be almost universally descriptive. or at least sufficiently so that further inquiry won’t provide additional knowledge about mankind and human behavior. I **DO** believe that we can construct a science of COOPERATION instead of a science of ‘economics’. I think this categorization of cooperation as economic has taken root, and it may be impossible to fix at this point. However, the study of economic activity is the use of easily recorded economic data to capture the demonstrated behavior and preferences of human beings better than any other form of test can possibly do. But the science we are constructing through economics, cognitive science, and experimental psychology, is the the science of COOPERATION. That science, for all intents and purposes has yielded, and will yield, only one fundamental set of principles. And that single fundamental set of principles will undoubtably be categorized as what we USED to call, “POLITICAL ECONOMY”. [B]ecause all human cooperation requires institutions that facilitate organization of invention, production, distribution and consumption by voluntary means, while at the same time prohibiting free riding in all it’s forms: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest. As such, the science of cooperation, including:

      • RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS Doing something unsolicited for someone who appreciates

        RANDOM ACTS OF KINDNESS

        Doing something unsolicited for someone who appreciates it immensely is one of those feelings that is hard to exceed in life.

        If you get that look of awe, and a handshake or hug in exchange, it’s all the return that’s necessary.

        A lot of things people care about (a new, or even ‘newer’ battery for a car, or a set of tires, or a very-used-iPhone to replace an ordinary cell) are things some of us don’t care about at all.

        So, if you are searching for hugs and handshakes in exchange for making a major difference in the l lives of others – at little cost and effort, and you don’t see opportunities all around you, then you’re not in an environment where there exists a double-coincidence of wants.

        The only people who are ‘not good’ in this world are the self righteous. Make life more hell for them at every opportunity. (Marxists)

        Otherwise the vast majority of people in the world are pretty good – often misguided, misinformed, ignorant or superstitious.

        Its worth treating them that way.


        Source date (UTC): 2014-03-23 13:15:00 UTC

      • THE FIRST QUESTION OF POLITICS: TERNARY ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN ETHICS vs BINAR

        THE FIRST QUESTION OF POLITICS: TERNARY ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN ETHICS vs BINARY GHETTO ETHICS

        The 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.


        Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 11:48:00 UTC

      • THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE – THE FAILURE OF THE NAP AND ROTHBARDIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS

        THE VIRTUE OF VIOLENCE – THE FAILURE OF THE NAP AND ROTHBARDIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS

        MORALITY

        – Morality is a property of cooperation.

        – Violence is amoral. (Not immoral, but amoral.)

        – The purpose of the application of violence may or may not be moral.

        – If we are not cooperating then violence is amoral, regardless of purpose.

        – If we are cooperating, violence amoral, but its purpose is not.

        – If we are cooperating and one must obtain restitution then violence is moral.

        – If we are cooperating and violating property rights then violence for that purpose is immoral.

        Although technically speaking:

        1) Criminal violations are against body and property.

        2) Unethical violations are under asymmetry of information.

        3) Immoral violations are against asymmetry of awareness.

        In the construction of property rights by the suppression of free riding in its criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial forms, violence is not amoral, but a VIRTUE.

        Violence is a virtue not a vice.

        And attempts to obtain liberty without paying the cost of suppressing free riding are acts of fraud – attempts to obtain an expensive end without paying for it.

        Rothbardianism is Parasitism.

        Either the NAP is false or the definition of property is too narrow, because NAP covers criminal but not unethical and immoral actions. As such the NAP is a device for outlawing the moral use of violence in an effort to preserve the immoral and unethical use of deception.

        If instead, we state that property extends to all that humans have acted to obtain as their property by forgoing opportunity for consumption – then NAP against commons would be logical, and a prohibition against unethical and immoral behavior.

        Therefore you must either abandon the NAP or Rothbardian property rights, as immoral, unethical, and illogical.


        Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 14:28:00 UTC

      • IMPERIALISM Imperialism is defensive when cooperation is structurally impossible

        IMPERIALISM

        Imperialism 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, and 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.


        Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 11:08:00 UTC

      • Improving Hoppe's Origin Of Human Cooperation

        –“Human cooperation is the result of three factors: the differences among men and/or the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production; the higher productivity achieved under the division of labor based on the mutual recognition of private property (the exclusive control of every man over his own body and his physical appropriations and possessions) as compared to either self-sufficient isolation or aggression, plunder and domination; and the human ability to recognize this latter fact. “– Hoppe – “NATURAL ORDER, THE STATE, AND THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM”

        [I]’m going to correct Hans a bit here by saying that human cooperation is the result of these properties:

        • 1) the differences in abilities among men.
          2) the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production.
          3) the local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor.
          4) the local structure of the family and inheritance rights.
          5) the distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons.
          6) the degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family.
          7) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting).
          8) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints.
          9) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions.
          10) The recognition of these facts. (I question whether this last one is true.)

        CONVERTING HOPPE FROM CONTINENTAL TO EMPIRICAL [T]he more work I do the more I come to see my work as converting hoppe’s Continental arguments into Anglo Empirical arguments. Just like Hoppe converted Rothbard’s Cosmopolitan arguments into more rigorous continental language. [callout]The vast majority of people do not desire liberty – they desire only consumption. They have the numbers. They always will.[/callout] I think a few people have caught on to what I mean when I say that Hoppe got most everything right. He just didn’t get to the CAUSE of liberty. He was able to deduce all the applications of property rights, but not it’s cause. I got to its cause. The organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms, and the grant of property rights reciprocally to those who thusly applied their violence. Understanding the cause changes our tactic in obtaining and maintaining liberty. You don’t appeal for it. You demand it. If your demands aren’t met you take it. The vast majority of people do not desire liberty – they desire only consumption. They have the numbers. They always will. Property rights are a moral conspiracy so to speak.