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.
Theme: Predation
-
If you eliminate free riding in all its forms: violence, theft fraud, omission,
If you eliminate free riding in all its forms: violence, theft fraud, omission, obscurantism, externalization, socialization, privatization, corruption, conspiracy and conquest – then the only action remaining available to man is the voluntary exchange of private property.
Cooperation is only possible if we suppress all free riding. Thats what cooperating means.
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-14 09:43:00 UTC
-
ON WALTER BLOCK’S ADVOCACY OF GHETTO ETHICS “Turns out he’s mostly wrong. Only c
ON WALTER BLOCK’S ADVOCACY OF GHETTO ETHICS
“Turns out he’s mostly wrong. Only chance of future funding streams, is to abandon parasitic ethics. Rothbard’s critique of the state is priceless, and his history is almost as good. But his choice to try to base liberty on the ethics of the ghetto, rather than the ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian polity did the movement more damage than all his other works did good. It’s non-logical, it’s ahistorical, and it’s a demonstrated failure.
Walter is the most popular justifier of parasitic ethics in the world. And I have learned a great deal from him. But , it turns out that like rothbard, he’s just wrong. The ghetto was a state within a state, acted like a state. And rothbard’s ethics are those of exchange between states, not polities. The irony of that statement is palpable.”
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-13 04:04:00 UTC
-
AMERICAN FEMALE LUXURY GOODS: 1) Single Motherood 2) Independent Habitation 3) F
AMERICAN FEMALE LUXURY GOODS:
1) Single Motherood
2) Independent Habitation
3) Financial Parasitism
4) Freedom from care, affection and sex to a beta.
5) Privileged legal status
At the expense of:
1) Male savings, asset accumulation and comfortable retirement.
2) Male sale of his productivity in exchange for care and sex.
3) Male quality of life
4) High male death rates from high risk labor
5) High male suicide rates
Source date (UTC): 2014-02-11 07:33:00 UTC
-
ROTHBARD’S ETHICAL GHETTO Rothbardian ethics are just an excuse to suppress the
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.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 16:15:00 UTC
-
IRRATIONAL, AND EVOLUTIONARILY DESTRUCTIVE, ROTHBARDIAN PARASITIC ETHICS. It is
IRRATIONAL, AND EVOLUTIONARILY DESTRUCTIVE, ROTHBARDIAN PARASITIC ETHICS.
It is irrational and very likely an evolutionary impossibility for an organism to tolerate extraction or parasitism from it’s own kind except in matters of limited kin selection.
The evolution of cooperation requires that we deny others the ability to free ride on our efforts, cheat against us, or steal from us, while still insuring each other against periods of incapacity to produce.
So why would any group tolerate rothbardian ethics EXCEPT as a means of predation and parasitism on neighbors?
They wouldn’t.
Rothbardian ethics are irrational. Aggression either must include prohibition on cheating, non-predatory exchange, and all other forms of extractive parasitism, or else aggression is an insufficient test of rational property rights. The only tolerable means of cooperation is PRODUCTIVE, FULLY INFORMED, WARRANTIED, VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE.
Everything else is just an excuse for suppressing the strong’s violence while maintaining the cunning’s ability to lie cheat and steal.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 12:23:00 UTC
-
THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM: CRIMINAL, ETHICAL, MORAL, CONSPIRATORIAL, CONQUEST The spe
THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM: CRIMINAL, ETHICAL, MORAL, CONSPIRATORIAL, CONQUEST
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).
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-26 08:08:00 UTC
-
ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS ARE A PARASITIC SCAM. Rothbard’s ethics are just another a pa
ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS ARE 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.
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-24 21:18:00 UTC
-
RISK AND TRUST REQUIRE THE SUPPRESSION OF DISCOUNTS (FREE RIDING) “There is a ne
RISK AND TRUST REQUIRE THE SUPPRESSION OF DISCOUNTS (FREE RIDING)
“There is a negative relation between risk tolerance and egalitarianism in both jobs and portfolios.” — Meir Statman
Santa Clara University
Risk requires the suppression of free riding. No matter where we look, we will find that individualism suppresses free riding and increases trust, and therefore risk taking.
To increase redistribution while retaining trust, require homogeneity.
Everything else denies genetic necessity.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1647086
Source date (UTC): 2014-01-15 07:29:00 UTC
-
ON MUHAMMED The media can glorify anyone with nonsense words. But Muhammed was a
ON MUHAMMED
The media can glorify anyone with nonsense words. But Muhammed was a warrior who took a bunch of ignorant criminals experienced in constant warfare and used them to raid two civilizations exhausted from long term war, and guarantee that they never returned to prior successes.
Would the world be a better place with the Sassanid Iranians and the Eastern Roman Byzantines unconquered? It’s pretty hard to argue otherwise. All of Islamic ‘thought’ was the product of conquered people from Greek, Byzantine and Sassanid empires, writing in Arabic to please their masters.
Very much like the same tactic, used by the mongols to conquer and rape the Indians and the slavs. Their is nothing to respect here. You can respect the Chinese at least for using their capacity for war to create a vast and wealthy civilization. But you cannot respect teh mongols, nor the arabs, because in both cases, they used cavalry tactics to destroy capital and trade. Their destruction of Mediterranean trade deprived Europe of gold, and trade from the wealthier east, and brought about the dark ages.
Sort of crediting the antique dealers for the design and production of their wares. Or the plague bearers for surviving. I mean, we aren’t all impressed with ourselves for wiping out the native americans.
If the christianization of Europe was not the greatest human tragedy in history, then the conquest of the Byzantines and the islamification of the Balkans, and the destruction of the Iranian indo-european civilization by the arab, certainly was. The most recent human tragedy was wold communism. Thankfully the Anglosphere was not sufficiently exhausted to resist it. And the economic program was such a failure that it wasn’t sustainable.
however, we must understand, that EUROPE **IS** exhausted, genetically and is dying under the weight of immigration without assimilation.
Only one people has invented science, reason, and industrialization, and done it twice. Everyone else is an also ran, except the Chinese, who probably would have done the same, if not prisoners of ideographic language, under the control of philosophers who failed to solve the problem of politics and therefore, the problem of economics.
Inbred, ignorant, mystical, low trust, anti-rational, anti-scientific, overbreeding, low intelligence, highly impulsive, incapable of intellectual or artistic innovation people are not impressive to me. I can make nearly the same criticism of rats and dogs.
Is that insulting enough. lol ?
Source date (UTC): 2013-12-26 14:48:00 UTC