[T]here is a reason that all works on libertarianism are introductions and so very few are advanced, as are works in economics, capital, public choice, democracy, social democracy, marxism and even neo-conservatism. We really have what, Hayek on classical liberal law, and Garrison and Reissman in classical economics? But advanced works on libertarianism don’t exist other than rothbard’s revisionist history and his works on banking. Criticisms (man economy and state) are not the same as advocacy of actionable production of institutions that can survive competition from opposing preferences. The reason people rely upon catchphrases is because there is very little else to rely upon. And those other things we can rely upon (the business cycle, capital formation) are not special to us, but matters of mainstream argument. As an empirical measure, why is it that largely intro works exist? Why is it that the near near propaganda level advocacy of Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe fails to include the critics? Why is it that of the scholars in the field only David Friedman survives – and he survives precisely because he makes preferential rather than rational or empirical arguments? Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
Theme: Incentives
-
Why Are All Books On Cosmopolitan Libertinism Introductory? (They Must Be)
[T]here is a reason that all works on libertarianism are introductions and so very few are advanced, as are works in economics, capital, public choice, democracy, social democracy, marxism and even neo-conservatism. We really have what, Hayek on classical liberal law, and Garrison and Reissman in classical economics? But advanced works on libertarianism don’t exist other than rothbard’s revisionist history and his works on banking. Criticisms (man economy and state) are not the same as advocacy of actionable production of institutions that can survive competition from opposing preferences. The reason people rely upon catchphrases is because there is very little else to rely upon. And those other things we can rely upon (the business cycle, capital formation) are not special to us, but matters of mainstream argument. As an empirical measure, why is it that largely intro works exist? Why is it that the near near propaganda level advocacy of Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe fails to include the critics? Why is it that of the scholars in the field only David Friedman survives – and he survives precisely because he makes preferential rather than rational or empirical arguments? Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Love Reduces Transaction Costs
[L]OVE REDUCES COSTS –“Love reduces transaction costs, just as truth reduces transaction costs, just as law reduces transaction costs. Love is an economically rewarding investment.”— That’s the secret to western christendom.
-
Love Reduces Transaction Costs
[L]OVE REDUCES COSTS –“Love reduces transaction costs, just as truth reduces transaction costs, just as law reduces transaction costs. Love is an economically rewarding investment.”— That’s the secret to western christendom.
-
The Fallacy of Rothbardian Optimistic Consequences: Another Hack of Pathological Altruism
—“The entire basis of Anarcho-capitalism is that reputation networks will convey information “— [T]hat fallacy is a hack of pathological altruism. It is neither logically no empirically true. The reason being that production and consumption decrease rapidly due to the increased transaction costs with the necessity of reputation (knowledge) in a market that exists precisely because of anonymity (complexity and ignorance). And empirically we cannot find evidence to the contrary. So as long as you cannot run out of customers to cheat, it is cheaper and more rewarding to cheat customers than engage in production. (rothbardian ghetto ethics again). The state need not regulate the market, however, to create competitive economic velocity the law must prohibit ‘cheating’. Or better stated, the legal prohibition on parasitism that violates the incentive to cooperate (thereby increasing transaction costs and decreasing economic velocity), expressed as a requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality of the same criteria, must expand with inventions of means of parasitism. The sequence of parasitism from the most direct and to the most indirect is: murder, violence, theft, fraud, extortion, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, genocide. As the division of knowledge and labor and the complexity of production increases, anonymity increases, and new opportunities for parasitism are invented, requiring the common law to respond with new prohibitions on parasitism. Well functioning markets with adequate suppression of parasitism increase trust. Poorly functioning markets function poorly because of inadequate suppression of parasitism. If we say that we desire freedom from a parasitic government (liberty) how can we logically claim not to desire freedom from parasitic individuals (morality)? The only logical answer, if one claims both liberty, and opportunity for parasitism, is that one seeks to cheat both the commons and cheat others. As such one is simply a parasite identical to those of that populate the state and justify their parasitism with claims of the common good. Rothbardianism is, like neo-conservatism, and socialism, a hack of our western gullibility due to pathological altruism. It’s one of the great deceits. Not as great as Socialism and particularly (pseudo)scientific socialism, and not as great in success as neo-conservatism, but certainly as well articulated as the former. IF we desire existential liberty it cannot be obtained by fallacy. It can only be obtained the only way it has been in the past: the reciprocal insurance against all parasitism by the promise of violence to suppress it. This is the operational definition of liberty, just as liberty: the constraint of state actors to the morality of interpersonal conduct, is the descriptive definition of liberty, just as freedom from imposition is the experiential description of liberty. All ‘optimistic consequences’ argued in Rothbardian libertinism are false. That is because the optimistic consequences increase the expense of suppression of parasitism with ongoing diligence, that never ends. There is no end to policing against parasitism. There is only the necessity of non-interference in the common law, which offers the most rapid means of suppression of parasitism: making new inventions of parasitism illegal with the first suit adjudicated. **Liberty: Every man a warrior. Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. This is the only known means of constructing liberty.** Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
The Fallacy of Rothbardian Optimistic Consequences: Another Hack of Pathological Altruism
—“The entire basis of Anarcho-capitalism is that reputation networks will convey information “— [T]hat fallacy is a hack of pathological altruism. It is neither logically no empirically true. The reason being that production and consumption decrease rapidly due to the increased transaction costs with the necessity of reputation (knowledge) in a market that exists precisely because of anonymity (complexity and ignorance). And empirically we cannot find evidence to the contrary. So as long as you cannot run out of customers to cheat, it is cheaper and more rewarding to cheat customers than engage in production. (rothbardian ghetto ethics again). The state need not regulate the market, however, to create competitive economic velocity the law must prohibit ‘cheating’. Or better stated, the legal prohibition on parasitism that violates the incentive to cooperate (thereby increasing transaction costs and decreasing economic velocity), expressed as a requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality of the same criteria, must expand with inventions of means of parasitism. The sequence of parasitism from the most direct and to the most indirect is: murder, violence, theft, fraud, extortion, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, genocide. As the division of knowledge and labor and the complexity of production increases, anonymity increases, and new opportunities for parasitism are invented, requiring the common law to respond with new prohibitions on parasitism. Well functioning markets with adequate suppression of parasitism increase trust. Poorly functioning markets function poorly because of inadequate suppression of parasitism. If we say that we desire freedom from a parasitic government (liberty) how can we logically claim not to desire freedom from parasitic individuals (morality)? The only logical answer, if one claims both liberty, and opportunity for parasitism, is that one seeks to cheat both the commons and cheat others. As such one is simply a parasite identical to those of that populate the state and justify their parasitism with claims of the common good. Rothbardianism is, like neo-conservatism, and socialism, a hack of our western gullibility due to pathological altruism. It’s one of the great deceits. Not as great as Socialism and particularly (pseudo)scientific socialism, and not as great in success as neo-conservatism, but certainly as well articulated as the former. IF we desire existential liberty it cannot be obtained by fallacy. It can only be obtained the only way it has been in the past: the reciprocal insurance against all parasitism by the promise of violence to suppress it. This is the operational definition of liberty, just as liberty: the constraint of state actors to the morality of interpersonal conduct, is the descriptive definition of liberty, just as freedom from imposition is the experiential description of liberty. All ‘optimistic consequences’ argued in Rothbardian libertinism are false. That is because the optimistic consequences increase the expense of suppression of parasitism with ongoing diligence, that never ends. There is no end to policing against parasitism. There is only the necessity of non-interference in the common law, which offers the most rapid means of suppression of parasitism: making new inventions of parasitism illegal with the first suit adjudicated. **Liberty: Every man a warrior. Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. This is the only known means of constructing liberty.** Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev Ukraine
-
Shaming is Only Effective as Long as Men Care.
[M]en require an incentive to care about women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative liberty, men will cease suppressing their desires for the benefit of women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative illiberty, then they will force women into submissive roles. These are empirical statements and constant throughout history. There is no free lunch for women. There is no feminist utopia. The compromise between the genders that is the family is the result of the evolutionary game theory: it is the best option available for both genders, even if it is not the best for either gender. So, a few of us may ‘cheat’ the compromise and get away with it. But if enough of us cheat the compromise it will break. If it breaks we end up with either men enforcing it, or conquest by those that do. Civilization may be constructed almost entirely by men, but the INCENTIVE to produce civilization is provided by women. That is because for the alpha males, who are the world’s greatest super-predator’s. War, Raiding, Fighting, Pillaging, Stealing and Raping are preferable and enjoyable activities.
-
Shaming is Only Effective as Long as Men Care.
[M]en require an incentive to care about women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative liberty, men will cease suppressing their desires for the benefit of women and society. If women fail to provide men with that incentive under relative illiberty, then they will force women into submissive roles. These are empirical statements and constant throughout history. There is no free lunch for women. There is no feminist utopia. The compromise between the genders that is the family is the result of the evolutionary game theory: it is the best option available for both genders, even if it is not the best for either gender. So, a few of us may ‘cheat’ the compromise and get away with it. But if enough of us cheat the compromise it will break. If it breaks we end up with either men enforcing it, or conquest by those that do. Civilization may be constructed almost entirely by men, but the INCENTIVE to produce civilization is provided by women. That is because for the alpha males, who are the world’s greatest super-predator’s. War, Raiding, Fighting, Pillaging, Stealing and Raping are preferable and enjoyable activities.
-
Lies, Damned Lies, and Opportunity Costs
[A]ll costs are opportunity costs. What is the difference in cost between one set of possibilities and another set of possibilities. Unfortunately human cognitive bias cannot easily make these judgements because we have dense information about the present, and sparse information about the alternatives. Plus we are loss averse, and skeptical of one another. The christianization of the west is probably the greatest crime in history followed by the muslim conquest of byzantine and Persian empires, and followed by the cosmopolitan pseudosciences of the 19th and 20th centuries: marxism, freudianism, Keynesian innumeracy, postmodernism, and the socialist enfranchisement of women and their destruction of the family, law, property rights, and history, grammar, logic and truth telling. Lies, damned lies, and more lies.
-
Lies, Damned Lies, and Opportunity Costs
[A]ll costs are opportunity costs. What is the difference in cost between one set of possibilities and another set of possibilities. Unfortunately human cognitive bias cannot easily make these judgements because we have dense information about the present, and sparse information about the alternatives. Plus we are loss averse, and skeptical of one another. The christianization of the west is probably the greatest crime in history followed by the muslim conquest of byzantine and Persian empires, and followed by the cosmopolitan pseudosciences of the 19th and 20th centuries: marxism, freudianism, Keynesian innumeracy, postmodernism, and the socialist enfranchisement of women and their destruction of the family, law, property rights, and history, grammar, logic and truth telling. Lies, damned lies, and more lies.