(draft)(more work tomorrow)
THE CONSTRAINTS CREATED BY MORALITY IN CONSTRUCTING THE INSTITUTION OF PROPERTY
(undone)
THE FAMLY STRUCTURE AS A CONSTRAINT ON PROPERTY AND MORALITY
(undone)
CAUSES OF PROPERTY
I’ve articulated the cause of Property, Manners, Ethics and Morals as the necessity of cooperation and the consequential prevention of free riding. This is a ‘pre-property’ argument illustrating the cause of moral behavior, and the limits upon property because of it.
PROPOSITION 0.0 : Time
PROPOSITION 1 : Survival is the first universal good.
…COROLLARY 1.1 : Action
…COROLLARY 1.2 : Searching
…COROLLARY 1.3 : Acquisition (identity)
…COROLLARY 1.4 ; Storing (memory)
…COROLLARY 1.5 : Planning (calculation)
{PROPOSITION 2 : The second universal “good” is prosperity. Upon which all other ‘goods’ depend.}
PROPOSITION 3 : The utility of cooperation in producing prosperity
…COROLLARY 3.1 : the division of labor
…COROLLARY 3.2 : the utility of voluntary organization
…COROLLARY 3.3 : the necessity of property (monopoly of control)
…COROLLARY 3.4 : the necessity of extending our perception (instrumentalism)
……COROLLARY 3.4.1 : (logic of cooperation – ethics)
……COROLLARY 3.4.x : (logic of money, prices, accounting etc)
……COROLLARY 3.4.x : (logic of identity – necessary properties)
……COROLLARY 3.4.x : (logic of naming – numbering)
……COROLLARY 3.4.x : (logic of relations – mathematics )
……COROLLARY 3.4.x : (logic of causality – physics)
PROPOSITION 4 : The Prohibition on involuntary transfer
…COROLLARY 4.1 : requirement for contribution to consumption
(more later, but you get the idea.)
IS PROPERTY THE CONSEQUENCE OF SCARCITY OR COOPERATION OR THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING – OR ALL THREE?
(undone)
THE IMPACT OF FRAMING UNDER POWER AND WEAKNESS
“I have this right or that” is an appeal by the weak against the strong. “I will not tolerate this or that” is demand, or threat, by the strong. And aristocracy cannot by definition act from a position of weakness.
(undone)
RIGHTS ARE POSITIVE ASSERTIONS IN FAVOR OF ONE’S SELF RATHER THAN MORE AGGRESSIVE LANGUAGE THAT PROHIBITS THE ACTIONS OF OTHERS.
The problem is, that when we assert rights, and construct our ethics from rights, we lose the cause of those rights, and the broader scope of their cause. This causes us to defend rights, instead of consistently evolve positive assertions that reflect the underlying negative cause: the prohibition on free riding.
THE PROTOCOL OF ARGUMENTATION AS “FRAMING”.
(undone)
THE DIALECTICAL PROBLEM OF POSITIVE CLAIMS AND NEGATIVE PROHIBITIONS
The sayings “do unto others as you wold have done unto you” and “do noting to others that you would not have done to you” are nearly synonymous – but not entirely. Because of the assumption of homogeneity of interests in the golden rule vs heterogeneity of interests in the silver rule.
The terms “incentives” and “calculation” are mutually dependent. on cannot have incentives without the ability to calculate and there is no reason to calculate if one has no incentive to. So, these terms are nearly synonymous – but not entirely. Because of the difference between the people who can depend upon incentives to act in the participation of production, and the people who rely on calculation in order to discover complex means of organizing production.
The terms “prohibition on free riding” and “property rights” are likewise, mutually deponent concepts. They are nearly synonymous – but not entirely. Because of the scope of prohibitions under the rule of the prohibition on involuntary transfer, vs the scope of prohibitions under the rule of private property.
REPAIRING LIBERTARIAN ETHICS
This repairs libertarian ethics, sufficient for the common law, as the prohibition on involuntary transfer by any means other than competition (the negative version). And conversely (the positive version)
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-18 19:04:00 UTC