https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VNGiFMal9RMVIDEO: PROPERTARIANISM – ON ANCESTRAL LANDS
(please share)
CONTENTS
Historical Context with Roman Skaskiw.
Extension of Locke’s Criteria.
The (Demanding) Criteria for Repossession of Ancestral Lands
Fuzzy Terms Corrected: “Rights” and “Corporation”
Government as producer of commons unavailable for privatization.
The Obligation To Restore Ancestral Lands
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-17 06:57:00 UTC
IVP – Intersubjectively Verifiable Property
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-15 06:45:00 UTC
ON BITCOIN’S FUTURE – THERE IS NO POST-CAPITALIST FUTURE ON THE HORIZON. BITCOIN OR NO.
um… capitalism (private property, contract, money, prices, and consequential incentives) will exist forever in the same way that math will exist forever, because it is a necessary information system. That can’t go away – ever, because capitalism is required for the voluntary organization of production.
It is not capitalism that will be replaced, it is the reliance on the banking system that evolved during the era of hard currencies, that will be replaced.
There is no evidence that a distributed block chain employing proof of work is superior to a series of centrally managed databases such as Visa, Mastercard, and Amex, wherein transactions are immediately verified.
What is unique to this technology is that under fiat currency, each unit of currency is equal to a share of stock in the corporation of the state, which while not redeemable via the state, is insured by the state, and functions as a medium of exchange, unit of account and at least short term store of value.
Digital currency represents a divisible, fractional share of the issuing network. The state currency is insured by the state, but the digital currency is private and uninsured.
The state is more likely to demand that any network of sufficient scale is insured for it to be issued to the public without harm. I expect this legislation to appear within the coming decade.
Digital currency merely removes the middleman – the bank – from the distribution channel for the currency, and therefore the need for the bank to insure each transaction during the period of clearance when performing an escrow service.
This is the primary value of all bitcoin related technologies.
CONVERSELY
It is not rational to expect that the state will allow a digital currency to remain unregulated primarily because it is a ready-made vehicle for tax evasion and money laundering. (as we have already seen.) And digital currencies (a fractional share of a BTC network used as a money substitute) to rely upon infrastructure that is too perishable (even more so thank ATM networks) and as such the economic impact of such currency failure is too vast.
So digital currencies will never evolve into replacements for fiat money – they may only be used as a store of value against the loss of purchasing power of the fiat currency, when the money supply is inflated.
So the post-hard-currency era (I predict) will eliminate banks as a means of central distribution of credit to consumers, and function entirely as means of financing business credit. And transaction costs will drop precipitously since there is no escrow risk on the part of the bank.
But I might as well bark at the moon because the people who talk about their fantasies for bitcoin are ideologues who have very little comprehension about that which they speak.
Cheers.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-14 09:42:00 UTC
ALL FULL OF SOUND AND FURY SIGNIFYING NOTHING.
How can you state that liberty – defined as absence of loss of satisfaction caused by the actions others – can be implemented via formal institutions that will allow the formation of a voluntary polity?
If liberty is synonymous with the absence of such dissatisfying experiences as satisfaction, then what actions can bring about a state of liberty without those undesirable experiences?
Why is your theory of liberty not merely a description of the experiential state of liberty, and while a true statement, just a restatement of subjective value, expressed from the subjective rather than objective point of view – and therefore not just tautological hand waving without consequence?
You can claim that your theory of experiential liberty is a solution to the arguments positioned in your paper followed by a criticism of libertarians who are describing institutional rules for construction of liberty, instead of the experience of liberty – but you have not demonstrated either that you have solved the problem of determining the scope of actions that we MUST consider a violation of liberty and those that do not, or why the experiential point of view adds value to the extant proposition that value is subjective, and that the institutional question we are debating is that of the scope of property that we agree to resolve conflicts over, under law?
The question libertarians ask is how to eradicate need for the state. The problem is that we debate the scope of property rights because we have no non-arbitrary, rationally derived means of knowing the answer. What scope of violation constitutes a lack of imposition of costs?
Because such violations can include those that are observable and those are not; those that are tolerable and those that are not; those that are errors and those that are not. All libertarians make the same argument that you do, but the contention remains one of how we judge the truth of a claim that one has experienced such a subjective experience of dissatisfaction, so that disputes can be resolved?
Aren’t you just hand-waving? Isn’t your work irrelevant because it is both obvious, and because it does not solve the problem which you claim that it does? Isn’t your ridicule of libertarians in itself an absurdity? Your definition of, or “theory” of, experiential liberty tells us nothing about resolving the conflict over what actions are and are not permissible, under your self-stated assumption that a state of liberty is that in which we maximize liberty, assuming a state of subjectively maximized liberty is desirable. Isn’t the problem how we maximize liberty? And how does subjective value (an increase or decrease in satisfaction resulting from action) differ from your restatement?
How does the meaningless term ‘maximizing liberty’ help solve the problem of determining what scope we implement in the rule of law? And how is that any different from the evolutionary progress of the common law ‘s constant discovery of new means of criminal, unethical and immoral conduct?
Hoppe is correct. The only question we must answer in order to construct a condition of liberty is the scope of property we define as adjudicable under law. His argument (as I believe I understand it), is that intersubjectively verifiable property (prohibition on criminal offenses against extant entities), is the minimum universal scope of property necessary for liberty, and that above that scope, all other possible forms of property so covered under the law are a matter of contractual choice by the polity – not a logical necessity. This limit mirrors Rothbard’s Non-Aggression Principle and the scope of property he defines in The Ethics Of Liberty.
My criticism of Hoppe’s argument (and of Rothbard’s ethics, and of the fallacy of Non-Aggression reflects a moral proposition), is that the local transaction costs of daily life under intersubjectively verifiable property (mere criminal prohibitions), are sufficiently high that people will prefer an authoritarian state that either imposes additional rules, and/or which suppresses retaliation, because people ACT as if their property has been violated whenever they experience criminal, unethical, immoral or conspiratorial actions. And they will retaliate against them unless the law provides an organized means of restitution, or the state aggressively suppresses retributions. As such only high trust polities that suppress nearly all violations of property as defined by demonstrated human actions. And therefore that non-aggression, and intersubjectively verifiable property are irrelevant because they are insufficient to construct a condition of liberty.
As such, the definition of property articulated in law must mirror the violations of criminal, ethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions that people will retaliate against. And a low trust, Rothbardian polity where the minimum scope of property rights is defined as that which is intersubjectively verifiable, is impossible. And that the minimum scope of property is that which people will not desire to retaliate against its violation. That minimum scope of property appears to include not only the intersubjectively verifiable that can be transgressed against, but also unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions.
So your position your theory as a solution to libertarian confusion – however it is merely a restatement of the obvious and already extant: of the invisibly subjective and experiential rather than the observable, objective, and institutional; when subjective value has been stated for a century, and the question remains one of the scope of observable criteria for dispute resolution necessary for the formation of a polity that does not demonstrate demand for a state. We cannot agree on the scope of property and the means of violating it.
In other words, in your paper “The main philosophical problem with libertarian liberty” (a) you incorrectly state the cause of libertarian confusion as merely a linguistic problem of meaning, (b) and your proposed solution is a mere verbalism: restating the objective description of subjective value as subjective experience, (c) and you have not added clarity nor justified your ridicule, (d) and that the cause of confusion remains: what scope and conditions are permissible and not. 🙂
I conjecture that (a) the solution to the problem is empirically measurable, (b) that measure will prohibit unethical and immoral impositions, in addition to merely criminal impositions, and (c) the possibility of a condition of liberty increases with normative homogeneity of the polity, and (d) likewise that possibility increases the smaller the family size (the closer to the absolute nuclear family).
I make this conjecture because (e) transaction costs make liberty non-rational unless nearly equal to kinship transaction costs (trust), (f) tolerance for free riding decrease with kinship distance, and (g) shared norms are perceived as kinship signals.
It is possible to empirically falsify this argument. And I think that given the evidence it will be very hard to do that.
I will save my criticism of your misunderstanding of, and abuse of critical rationalism for a later date.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-13 08:48:00 UTC
Well, of COURSE statism is a crime. It’s a conspiracy to use organized violence to deprive you of anything someone chooses to deprive you of.
Conspiring to impose morality under the threat of violence – and more morality than people may desire, isn’t a crime – it’s eliminating all forms of crime.
So neither the nobility nor the judiciary constitute a criminal organization.
But If you work for the government proper you’re a criminal.
And we are morally justified in just rounding you up and killing you.
Quickly and without suffering perhaps.
But morally justified in killing you none the less.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-13 08:38:00 UTC
–“Propertarianism is a formal logic of morality, ethics and politics – and the necessary basis for a non-arbitrary, value-independent, universal, body of law; upon which any and all political orders can be constructed, and with which all questions of morality, ethics and politics are commensurable and all such propositions decidable.”—
–“Propertarianism is a formal logic of morality, ethics and politics – and the necessary basis for a non-arbitrary, value-independent, universal, body of law; upon which any and all political orders can be constructed, and with which all questions of morality, ethics and politics are commensurable and all such propositions decidable.”—
http://www.propertarianism.com/?p=6032WE COMPETE WITH TRUTH, FAMILY STRUCTURE, RATES OF REPRODUCTION, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS
(reposted from march, 2013)
The lesson I am learning from this is that living in a prosperous society is not necessarily an evolutionary advantage – it appears to be a disadvantage.
Unless you wall out the rest of the world, that is.
Swiss do it mostly right.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 06:44:00 UTC
PROPERTARIANISM
Propertarianism refers to a logical methodology that evolved first from John Locke, and then through the American libertarian movement, that attempts to express all ethical, moral, and political questions as consisting of various forms of property that can be voluntarily exchanged. This technique reduces all moral propositions to testable statements: if something is ethical, moral, right and just, then what was exchanged?
USAGE
The term is used casually to suggest that all questions of liberty are reducible to a statements of property and its voluntary transfer; then more accurately, that property rights are deontologically constructed necessities of human existence under natural law; and lastly, formally, the term is used to refer to a complete system of philosophy named ‘Propertarianism’ developed by Curt Doolittle for the analysis and criticism of all political moral and ethical questions, whether libertarian or not. (Where complete means that it both answers metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and aesthetic questions and satisfies Owen Flanagan’s test of a sufficient moral psychology.)
Usage: Propertarianism, (capitalized) for the explicit philosophy; and lower case for ‘propertarian’, which is used to refer to all three senses: “Locke was the first to state a propertarian argument.”
In grammatically correct usage, one makes a propertarian argument; one ‘is’ a propertarian if he merely holds ideological bias in favor of its use; one relies upon propertarian reasoning if he can make use of it, or one advocates propertarianism in some manner or other; and the name of the formal philosophy is Propertarianism.
DIFFERENCES FROM LIBERTARIANISM
Apples and oranges: Propertarianism is a logical system for the rational comparison of human moral propositions across all possible moral codes. Libertarianism is an ideological system of thought for the purpose of either obtaining political power, denying others political power, or bringing about a particular social and ethical system.
So while libertarianism may make use of Propertarianism and propertarian reasoning, because perhaps it best suits libertarian preferences, and because it evolved out of the libertarian movement, Propertarianism is a system of logical analysis of human cooperation, and not an advocacy of any particular political bias. It is just as easy to construct conservative and progressive arguments using Propertarianism as it is libertarian. It’s just that propertarianism, as a method of argument, makes it extremely difficult to ‘cheat’ and deceive others (or mislead yourself) when conducting a political argument or negotiation.
To the contrary, Doolittle uses Propertarianism to specifically criticize those libertarians who attempt to escape paying for the behavioral costs that make a libertarian society under the rule of law possible. Instead Doolittle argues that conservatives are more right than other groups in their moral preferences, they merely haven’t developed a rational language for discussion of their ideas, advocacy of their ideas, or, most importantly, the reformation of their ideas when we obtain sufficient knowledge via science to reform those ideas.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-09 08:44:00 UTC
I AM AN ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIAN
It’s a very simple philosophy: Speak Truthfully. Respect Property-en-toto. Assist all who agree to liberty. Punish the wicked until you defeat them completely.
SCORE?
You are a: Objectivist Libertarian Total-Isolationist Nationalist Moderate
Collectivism score: -100%
Authoritarianism score: -67%
Internationalism score: -100%
Tribalism score: 33%
Liberalism score: 0%
THERE ARENT ANY MEANINGFUL ARISTOCRATIC QUESTIONS ON THE SURVEY. They assume the status quo.
Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 15:05:00 UTC