CRITICISM IS LIMITED TO ETHICS AND CLAIMS THAT PRAXEOLOGY IS A SCIENCE RATHER THAN A LOGIC. [I] criticize the NAP and Rothbardian ethics because they are insufficient in scope for the rational voluntary formation of a polity (of other than sociopaths). Rothbardian ethics are parasitic. High trust ethics are productive. And no polity has EVER chosen parasitic ethics. Gypsies, Jews, and to a lesser degree eastern europeans and mediterraneans as well as Arabs and some nomads practice parasitic ethics outside the group, but not within the group. No group can persist (cooperate) under in-group parasitism. My solution is to define property as people define it by their actions, not as it is defined by intersubjective verifiability (hoppe’s definition). THE NECESSITY OF THE COMMON LAW AND A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION OF IN-GROUP PROPERTY RIGHTS. [A]nd the reason this definition of property matters, is that all libertarian institutional solutions are predicated on the assumption that a constitution defining property and requiring the common law, is sufficient ‘government’ that no ‘government’ capable of making laws need exist. Without the common law libertarianism fails to be ‘rational and calculable’ since without a common definition of property, disputes over property rights are unsolvable by rational means. Now I also argue that in addition to the common law, and a definition of property as people demonstrate property by their actions, no group can compete economically against other groups unless it can produce commons. And that the production of commons requires prevention of free riding, socialization of losses and privatization of the commons and gains from the commons. HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS ARE THE ANSWER TO MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY [B]ut that is not a criticism of Hoppeian libertarian solutions to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy by the use of competing private insurance companies rather than that same insurance provided by the monopoly bureaucracy that we call the state. The problems with the state are (a) law-making (command issuance) given that laws cannot be made, only discovered, and (b) the self interest of all members of a bureaucracy and the unavoidable predation that results from bureaucracy. (c) Technically speaking the errors of democracy and majority rule are properties of one form of government, and not government per se. LIBERTARIANISM AS FREEDOM FROM CONSPIRATORIAL IMMORALITY: FREE RIDING BY THE BUREAUCRACY. [I]’ve been criticizing ‘stupid-tarians’, and ‘immoral-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’ and ‘libertines’ of late, masquerading as libertarians. If you follow a rule based ethic (the NAP) rather than the outcome of human actions in producing liberty, you are really quite stupid, honestly, because it is quite clear that (a) the NAP is a failed test if we limit property contestable in court to ‘private property’, because it’s non-rational for people to choose an immoral and unethical polity and as such they will not eliminate demand for the state under NAP. And (b) because it’s pretty obvious to all but autistic and immoral people that the NAP permits – legally – immoral and unethical behavior: thefts via indirection, deception and externality. (c) that only outcomes, not observance of rules determines the success or failure of any set of rules. And Rothbardianism is a failed, ridiculed, illogical, immoral, ethical system. So, libertarian then means ‘working for liberty that is logically and empirically achievable. If it means something else to you, then you’re just a stupid-tarian, immoral-tarian, or libertine, and not a libertarian: one who places liberty above all other moral values. If libertarian means stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly, and libertine, then we must rescue liberty and the terminology from the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine. Liberty, as a brand, as a meme, as a term, and as a political objective, is not open for capture by the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine. That would be immoral. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
Theme: Institution
-
"Regulation" Under Libertarianism
[L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.
-
“Regulation” Under Libertarianism
[L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.
-
"Regulation" Under Libertarianism
[L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.
-
“Regulation” Under Libertarianism
[L]ibertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate: a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law. b) requirement that companies be insured. c) elimination of liability protections for executives. The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors. It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology. But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.
-
The Central Object Of The Anarchic Research Program
[T]he central objective of the anarcho capitalist research program has been how to eliminate the monopoly bureaucracy and its institutionalize parasitism on the population, yet still produce a prosperous social order. In libertarian circles we often refer to this simply as “the problem of social order.” THE CENTRAL THEORY Like marxism, libertarian philosophy is pretty rigorously thought out. By the time we get to Hoppe, it’s a well articulated theory of politics. So the logical errors in libertarianism tend to be complex, not trivial. Most criticisms of libertarianism are naive or irrelevant because libertarian claims are technical, articulated in a formal and technical language, and they are not intuitive or normative claims at all. So without knowledge of the libertarian terminology and it’s arguments, is pretty hard to make a legitimate criticism – and that’s why so many criticisms are not legitimate. DEFINITIONS “NAP: the non-aggression principle. That one will not aggress against the life and property of others.” “Property: (n) Your life, your mind, your body, things you have obtained in trade, and things you have converted to first-use (homesteading).” “Violence: (n) Physical aggression against property.” “Aggression: (n) hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.” So it’s okay to use violence against aggression. ie: any time you and your property are threatened. And to obtain restitution for your lost property. So, no, the NAP is not a prohibition on violence. It’s a prohibition on the violation of property in which you, yourself, are also your property (that which you must have monopoly of control). Or more accurately, private property functions as an extension of your body and life. (true) and as such violations against your ‘things’ are violations against your body. WHY PROPERTY IS SO IMPORTANT The general theory upon which anarcho capitalism rests, is that a rigid definition of property, and the common law, are sufficient for the formation of a polity. And that monopoly government and its systematic predation due to lack of competition is not necessary. Because the common law is sufficient ‘government’ for an anarchic polity. (This is the legal framework of a migratory herding people, or disasporic traders.) This differs from a high trust agrarian society where the people must organize to prevent others from displacing them from the land. In a landed society, it is necessary for organizations to have leaders, to prevent free riding by those not willing to fight for that land. PROSPERITY AS ‘THE COMMON GOOD” But since trust is an index of productivity, because lack of trust acts as a friction on seizure of opportunity – and particularly on the concentration of capital by future-oriented people – (a form of transaction cost) then high trust is the the greatest social asset a polity can possess in the production of wealth. Property will evolve from trust. Trust evolves from the prevention of free riding. The prevention of free riding evolves from the need to cooperate. THE PROBLEM WITH NAP AND PRIVATE PROPERTY: “TRUST” Private property and a weak state only evolve in high trust societies. But high trust societies are not dependent upon the NAP. They are dependent upon the suppression of free riding. The absolute nuclear family for example, even prohibits free riding by your children. The NAP doesn’t prohibit unethical and immoral actions, so you can’t initiate violence against, say, a blackmailer, or scam artist, or other person who engages in conspiracy. Its a license for predation. Given the high cost of violence and the low cost of unethical and immoral behavior, it’s non-logical to essentially prohibit violence but not prohibit every kind of cheating possible. The NAP operates on the assumption that a high trust society already exists, but actually fosters the destruction of the high trust society. Because high trust societies do not limit ‘property’ wither private or common to the physical. High trust societies prevent free riding, of which private property crime is merely one component. That is why it’s non-rational.
-
The Central Object Of The Anarchic Research Program
[T]he central objective of the anarcho capitalist research program has been how to eliminate the monopoly bureaucracy and its institutionalize parasitism on the population, yet still produce a prosperous social order. In libertarian circles we often refer to this simply as “the problem of social order.” THE CENTRAL THEORY Like marxism, libertarian philosophy is pretty rigorously thought out. By the time we get to Hoppe, it’s a well articulated theory of politics. So the logical errors in libertarianism tend to be complex, not trivial. Most criticisms of libertarianism are naive or irrelevant because libertarian claims are technical, articulated in a formal and technical language, and they are not intuitive or normative claims at all. So without knowledge of the libertarian terminology and it’s arguments, is pretty hard to make a legitimate criticism – and that’s why so many criticisms are not legitimate. DEFINITIONS “NAP: the non-aggression principle. That one will not aggress against the life and property of others.” “Property: (n) Your life, your mind, your body, things you have obtained in trade, and things you have converted to first-use (homesteading).” “Violence: (n) Physical aggression against property.” “Aggression: (n) hostile or violent behavior or attitudes toward another; readiness to attack or confront.” So it’s okay to use violence against aggression. ie: any time you and your property are threatened. And to obtain restitution for your lost property. So, no, the NAP is not a prohibition on violence. It’s a prohibition on the violation of property in which you, yourself, are also your property (that which you must have monopoly of control). Or more accurately, private property functions as an extension of your body and life. (true) and as such violations against your ‘things’ are violations against your body. WHY PROPERTY IS SO IMPORTANT The general theory upon which anarcho capitalism rests, is that a rigid definition of property, and the common law, are sufficient for the formation of a polity. And that monopoly government and its systematic predation due to lack of competition is not necessary. Because the common law is sufficient ‘government’ for an anarchic polity. (This is the legal framework of a migratory herding people, or disasporic traders.) This differs from a high trust agrarian society where the people must organize to prevent others from displacing them from the land. In a landed society, it is necessary for organizations to have leaders, to prevent free riding by those not willing to fight for that land. PROSPERITY AS ‘THE COMMON GOOD” But since trust is an index of productivity, because lack of trust acts as a friction on seizure of opportunity – and particularly on the concentration of capital by future-oriented people – (a form of transaction cost) then high trust is the the greatest social asset a polity can possess in the production of wealth. Property will evolve from trust. Trust evolves from the prevention of free riding. The prevention of free riding evolves from the need to cooperate. THE PROBLEM WITH NAP AND PRIVATE PROPERTY: “TRUST” Private property and a weak state only evolve in high trust societies. But high trust societies are not dependent upon the NAP. They are dependent upon the suppression of free riding. The absolute nuclear family for example, even prohibits free riding by your children. The NAP doesn’t prohibit unethical and immoral actions, so you can’t initiate violence against, say, a blackmailer, or scam artist, or other person who engages in conspiracy. Its a license for predation. Given the high cost of violence and the low cost of unethical and immoral behavior, it’s non-logical to essentially prohibit violence but not prohibit every kind of cheating possible. The NAP operates on the assumption that a high trust society already exists, but actually fosters the destruction of the high trust society. Because high trust societies do not limit ‘property’ wither private or common to the physical. High trust societies prevent free riding, of which private property crime is merely one component. That is why it’s non-rational.
-
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.
-
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.
-
LIBERTARIAN ‘REGULATION” (cross posted from elsewhere) Libertarians do not advoc
LIBERTARIAN ‘REGULATION”
(cross posted from elsewhere)
Libertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate:
a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law.
b) requirement that companies be insured.
c) elimination of liability protections for executives.
The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors.
It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology.
But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-02 23:30:00 UTC