[G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.
Theme: Predation
-
Definition: “Ghetto Ethics”
[G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.
-
The Fiction Of The Morality Of Ghetto Property Rights
Lets get this straight OK? If you agree to not engage in murder, violence, destruction, theft, and fraud, it’s because you’re afraid of not doing so. It’s not because you’re a good person. It’s because you can so easily be caught. If you agree not to engage in omission, obscurantism, impediment, then you’re doing it for ethical reasons: not stealing from the people you interact with. If you agree not to engage in externalization, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, conspiracy then you’re doing it for moral reasons: not stealing from your entire polity. If you agree not to engage in military conquest, overbreeding, immigration without assimilation, or religious conquest, then you’re doing it because you care about not stealing from other polities. Lets do away with the fiction that respect for life and property is anything more than fear of retaliation. It’s not moral or ethical. It’s just necessary. Living a moral life means not stealing from any one, ever, under any circumstances, no matter how easy it is. Lets put an end to ghetto ethic, and return our definition of morality to its aristocratic origins: universal suppression of taking from others except in fully informed warrantied voluntary exchange. Propertarianism is the protestant ethic of the northern european people written in Anglo analytic philosophy: the language of science. Conservatism when it applies to the protestant ethic may be stated in ARATIONAL terms, but it is, to date, the most scientific system of ethics yet devised. We must prove something works first then adopt it. Not adopt it before it is proven.
-
The Fiction Of The Morality Of Ghetto Property Rights
Lets get this straight OK? If you agree to not engage in murder, violence, destruction, theft, and fraud, it’s because you’re afraid of not doing so. It’s not because you’re a good person. It’s because you can so easily be caught. If you agree not to engage in omission, obscurantism, impediment, then you’re doing it for ethical reasons: not stealing from the people you interact with. If you agree not to engage in externalization, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, conspiracy then you’re doing it for moral reasons: not stealing from your entire polity. If you agree not to engage in military conquest, overbreeding, immigration without assimilation, or religious conquest, then you’re doing it because you care about not stealing from other polities. Lets do away with the fiction that respect for life and property is anything more than fear of retaliation. It’s not moral or ethical. It’s just necessary. Living a moral life means not stealing from any one, ever, under any circumstances, no matter how easy it is. Lets put an end to ghetto ethic, and return our definition of morality to its aristocratic origins: universal suppression of taking from others except in fully informed warrantied voluntary exchange. Propertarianism is the protestant ethic of the northern european people written in Anglo analytic philosophy: the language of science. Conservatism when it applies to the protestant ethic may be stated in ARATIONAL terms, but it is, to date, the most scientific system of ethics yet devised. We must prove something works first then adopt it. Not adopt it before it is proven.
-
Rothbard's Ethical Ghetto
Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the strong’s ability to use violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to entrap, lie, cheat and steal. Liberty was created at the point of a sharp metal object, by heroic males, as a means of suppressing all forms of cheating on the backs of others. Rothbard’s pretense is simply a means of justifying parasitism on that hard won liberty. There is nothing libertarian about Rothbardian ethics. Its just a complex philosophical lie to justify immoral and unethical theft.
-
The Ethical Spectrum: Criminal, Unethical, Immoral, Conspiritorial
The spectrum describes means by which we act parasitically rather than productively. In a perfect world we only act productively with all parasitism eliminated. (No perfect world is possible I suppose, but it helps illustrate the point.) Human history from from our consanguineous communal (Bonobo-like) pre-history to our current state as individualist, single-parent, autonomous producers insured through a corporation we call the state, required, first and foremost, the continuous expansion of prohibition on free riding (parasitism) in all its forms, thereby pressing each individual human into the market. At some point our productivity increased sufficiently that a few people could specialize in thinking. But today, less than half of the population is actually engaged in productive labor and it’s heading toward a third. So soon, 2/3 of people extant live independent of productive labor. Given that malthusian limits controlled our population for most of history, it’s pretty impressive that so many people can be sustained by the combination of so few, plus fossil fuels of course. Or stated otherwise, 2/3 of the people life a life of luxury. I am not sure, but I cannot find anyone else who has described this system in detail. Very Weberian. SPECIFIC TERMS: By Conquest I mean organized (war) and unorganized conquest (immigration, religious invasion, political invasion). By Conspiratorial I mean organized conspiracies of extraction such as protection rackets including the government. By moral I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) actions we take on third parties. By ethical I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) we take directly on others who are involved with us by non physical action such as lying, cheating, obscuring, fraud, etc. By criminal I mean those extractions that we take against persons and their property by physical action (violence and theft).
-
The Ethical Spectrum: Criminal, Unethical, Immoral, Conspiritorial
The spectrum describes means by which we act parasitically rather than productively. In a perfect world we only act productively with all parasitism eliminated. (No perfect world is possible I suppose, but it helps illustrate the point.) Human history from from our consanguineous communal (Bonobo-like) pre-history to our current state as individualist, single-parent, autonomous producers insured through a corporation we call the state, required, first and foremost, the continuous expansion of prohibition on free riding (parasitism) in all its forms, thereby pressing each individual human into the market. At some point our productivity increased sufficiently that a few people could specialize in thinking. But today, less than half of the population is actually engaged in productive labor and it’s heading toward a third. So soon, 2/3 of people extant live independent of productive labor. Given that malthusian limits controlled our population for most of history, it’s pretty impressive that so many people can be sustained by the combination of so few, plus fossil fuels of course. Or stated otherwise, 2/3 of the people life a life of luxury. I am not sure, but I cannot find anyone else who has described this system in detail. Very Weberian. SPECIFIC TERMS: By Conquest I mean organized (war) and unorganized conquest (immigration, religious invasion, political invasion). By Conspiratorial I mean organized conspiracies of extraction such as protection rackets including the government. By moral I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) actions we take on third parties. By ethical I mean those extractions (parasitic and non productive) we take directly on others who are involved with us by non physical action such as lying, cheating, obscuring, fraud, etc. By criminal I mean those extractions that we take against persons and their property by physical action (violence and theft).
-
Does Voluntary Segregation Answer Parasitism?
To the extent that Rothbard has made statements supporting voluntary segregation, it seems there’s no conflict between the two of you. His city state might be a little more tolerant or bazaar ethics than yours, but beyond that, I don’t get the conflict. Perhaps you’re not here addressing his acceptance of voluntary segregation and are instead addressing the ethics he claimed were universal. Is that it? — Roman,
Partly. 1) Yes, it’s an argument against universalism. But more importantly, it’s argument against whether ANYONE, in practice, would make the rational choice to live in a world of very high transaction costs (unethical and immoral), instead of a world of very low transaction costs but very high costs (prohibition on all parasitism). So, I’m saying that a ghetto can exist as an offshoot of more advanced polities (most surviving hunter gatherers were outcasts from their civilizations for example.) But you cannot build a civilization out of a ghetto. It’s not historically evident that it’s possible. And it’s not praxeologically rational that you could. 2) Yes, we can make a claim that a group’s reproductive strategy, in order to be competitive, requires that they engage in parasitism.(That’s rothbard’s strategy.) We can claim that another group in order to suit its reproductive strategy, would suppress ALL parasitism. We can, as with the extended and inbred family, preserve familial parasitism as a form of insurance, and actively advocate external parasitism. 3) It is extremely hard to demonstrate why anyone would live in the ghetto who had a choice to live in the palace. BUT i am not sure what the difference is between a prison system and a ghetto other than the victorian and progress era illusion of reform. 4) I pair voluntary segregation with the right of ostracization. I think ‘voluntary segregation’ on its own is another attempt to justify rothbardian parasitism (ghetto ethics). NET NET Since any group of people will rationally choose to reduce transaction costs via a monopoly government even if it is high cost to them. The only POSSIBLE outcome of rothbardian ethics is not a voluntary society, it’s a voluntary ghetto. A ghetto that is also the refuge of those we reject through ostracization. And within that ghetto a certain set of skills will develop and certain individuals will benefit from parasitic competition against other parasitic peoples. It should become clear at this point where rothbard got his ethics from. Habituated, adapted, cultural memory of the ghetto. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic.
-
Does Voluntary Segregation Answer Parasitism?
To the extent that Rothbard has made statements supporting voluntary segregation, it seems there’s no conflict between the two of you. His city state might be a little more tolerant or bazaar ethics than yours, but beyond that, I don’t get the conflict. Perhaps you’re not here addressing his acceptance of voluntary segregation and are instead addressing the ethics he claimed were universal. Is that it? — Roman,
Partly. 1) Yes, it’s an argument against universalism. But more importantly, it’s argument against whether ANYONE, in practice, would make the rational choice to live in a world of very high transaction costs (unethical and immoral), instead of a world of very low transaction costs but very high costs (prohibition on all parasitism). So, I’m saying that a ghetto can exist as an offshoot of more advanced polities (most surviving hunter gatherers were outcasts from their civilizations for example.) But you cannot build a civilization out of a ghetto. It’s not historically evident that it’s possible. And it’s not praxeologically rational that you could. 2) Yes, we can make a claim that a group’s reproductive strategy, in order to be competitive, requires that they engage in parasitism.(That’s rothbard’s strategy.) We can claim that another group in order to suit its reproductive strategy, would suppress ALL parasitism. We can, as with the extended and inbred family, preserve familial parasitism as a form of insurance, and actively advocate external parasitism. 3) It is extremely hard to demonstrate why anyone would live in the ghetto who had a choice to live in the palace. BUT i am not sure what the difference is between a prison system and a ghetto other than the victorian and progress era illusion of reform. 4) I pair voluntary segregation with the right of ostracization. I think ‘voluntary segregation’ on its own is another attempt to justify rothbardian parasitism (ghetto ethics). NET NET Since any group of people will rationally choose to reduce transaction costs via a monopoly government even if it is high cost to them. The only POSSIBLE outcome of rothbardian ethics is not a voluntary society, it’s a voluntary ghetto. A ghetto that is also the refuge of those we reject through ostracization. And within that ghetto a certain set of skills will develop and certain individuals will benefit from parasitic competition against other parasitic peoples. It should become clear at this point where rothbard got his ethics from. Habituated, adapted, cultural memory of the ghetto. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic.
-
Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics As A Parasitic Scam
Rothbard’s ethics are just another a parasitic scam seeking to replace low transaction cost state parasitism, with high transaction cost universal parasitism. Aristocratic Egalitarians (protestants) had it right: universal responsibility for the universal suppression of all involuntary extractions, thereby forcing every living soul to compete in the market for goods and services, where his efforts produce a virtuous cycle. 1) We can describe all involuntary extractions of property as one of the following: Criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial (statist). Attached is one of my diagrams that illustrates this spectrum. The curve on the right is the DEMONSTRATED demand curve for liberty. Because it represents the REPRODUCTIVE return on forgone opportunities (opportunity costs). 2) All costs are opportunity costs. That definition of property is the human behavioral definition of property, not some artificially constructed definition of property that was created to justify aggression against property by non physical means. (Which is the very purpose of Rothbard’s argument.) If all costs are opportunity costs then it is not possible to make the argument for bribery except as an excuse to justify theft. (and it is an excuse to justify theft, which is why it’s almost universally rejected except by social outcasts.) The human intuitive perception of property, the human normative description of property, and the reproductively and cooperatively NECESSARY and non-arbitrary definition of property, is defined by the requirements for decreasing transaction costs of cooperation. From the most severe and direct (crime) to the most indirect and imperceptible (displacement via outbreeding or immigrating. A fact which is illustrated in the diagram.) 3) As I’ve said. Either the NAP is insufficient, or the definition of property rights is insufficient. I’m able to construct an argument that the NAP is sufficient as long as the definition of property rights is DESCRIPTIVE. But it is not possible to rationally choose an arbitrary description of private property limited to that which is necessary for economic production (private property) and its dependent ethics, and not ALSO leave unanswered the further definitions of property in all its forms that create the trust necessary for rational risk taking in a polity. My original assumption was that first mises made the error because of his obsession with commodity prices, which are a reductio example of property, and that rothbard further expanded that error with his appeal to predatory extractive ghetto ethics, as an group evolutionary theory. And I can forgive both authors for such errors. We cannot expect all men to be wise in all matters. But as time has progressed I’ve understood the damage that has resulted from the emphasis on a FAILED minority strategy (low trust society), to a successful majority strategy (high trust societies) in producing both eugenic reproduction and expanding wealth. 4) What is circular reasoning, is the arbitrary definition of rothbardian private property rights as a means of justifying involuntary extraction via PRIVATE SECTOR PARASITISM, as a means of replacing involuntary extraction via STATE PARASITISM. Rothbard’s ethics, statism and socialism, are parasitic. ROTHBARD’S ETHICS ARE PARASITIC. Only high trust property rights are fully productive and NOT parasitic. ONLY those high trust ethics. ONLY THOSE AND NO OTHER. Northwestern europeans managed to almost exterminate all involuntary extraction and forcing all human action into the market for goods and services. All of it. Forbidding all other means of free riding. Apriorism is an interesting tool for deceiving mediocre minds via overloading. It works in mathematical philosophy for the same reason it works in ethical philosophy: because these reductive arguments rely on aggregation of concepts that obscure the causal properties. So, yes, rothbardianism is a parasitic scam. 5) If we can get past that point we will get to the dispute over whether it is rational for people to exchange pervasive parasitism, pervasive transaction costs in daily life, for limited parasitic rents, corruption and conspiracy via the state. CLOSING All costs are opportunity costs. Humans DEMONSTRATE that they behave this way in all circumstances. And it is rational for them to do so. And irrational for them not to. And Rothbardian ethics are an attempt to trade one parasitic scam for another. Nothing more.