Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • YES, LAW=MORALITY IF ALL ETHICS ARE REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS (important piec

    YES, LAW=MORALITY IF ALL ETHICS ARE REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS

    (important piece)

    There is no distinction between legal and moral (criminal, ethical, moral) content in disputes. This fallacy is a central problem of the logic of libertarian property theory.

    The first question is whether we compensate people for defense of property rights (criminal ethical and moral) or expect them to pay those costs even if they cannot participate in production (which I argue is immoral.)

    I argue that this is a mere matter of compensating people via commission on overall production for their action in defense of the means of production (a low transaction cost society where voluntary organization of production is possible). And that people who participate in production and who choose to be involved in production should capture their wealth.

    Our error is in not acknowledging the costs of respecting property rights. Which are very high. And that is why respect for property rights, especially high trust property rights of the protestant northern europeans, is so rare. It’s terribly expensive, even if dramatically more productive.

    Like all fundamental philosophical questions (of which I only know half of a dozen that exist), the central question is either you have a right to reproduce if you cannot support your offspring. Is that immoral and therefore illegal? That question determines whether your arguments are simple and rational or complex and non-rational (incalculable).

    This division of labor and compensation does not require nonsense-bullshit moralizing from continental and cosmopolitan schools of thought (ie:deception, obscurantism, authoritarianism, and loading, framing,) to load and frame the argument. It is merely respect for individual property rights through and through.

    Low property rights with low ethical and moral standards will produce high demand for the state, while high property rights with high ethical and moral standards will produce low demand for the state.

    As such, for any libertarian order, the relationship between law and morality is one-to-one. There is no difference.

    However, it is a practical necessity to pay those who cannot engage in production but who can engage in creating the social, legal and economic means of production, for their efforts. And failing to do so is criminal as well as immoral.

    This approach gives everyone in the society (local polity that facilitates the voluntary organization of production) the same interests: suppression of the predatory state monopoly, while at the same time maintaining parity between law and morality.

    There is no need for emotional loading and framing if you actually do a bit of thinking. But libertarians are often lighter on the discipline of thinking than they let on.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 05:58:00 UTC

  • "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.

  • Comparison Of Libertarian Ethical Systems

    (You can see from this chart how Rothbardianism is immoral. In fact, it’s a a specialization in immorality: the involuntary transfer of property against the will of others.)

    1484716_10152152905747264_1495672552_n
    Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 12.04.21 PM
    Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 12.04.44 PM

  • Comparison Of Libertarian Ethical Systems

    (You can see from this chart how Rothbardianism is immoral. In fact, it’s a a specialization in immorality: the involuntary transfer of property against the will of others.)

    1484716_10152152905747264_1495672552_n
    Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 12.04.21 PM
    Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 12.04.44 PM

  • Rothbardian Ethics are Parasitic

    1) Ghetto ethics only require that the exchange is voluntary. 2) They do not require that the exchange is productive, only that parties are satisfied. (blackmail for example is not productive.) 3) They do not require fully informed exchange backed by warranty. (they allow lying and cheating and information holding) 4) They do not prohibit profiting from harm, or causing harm (Usury for example.) 5) They do not require that the exchange is free of externality. Parasitic ethics of rothbard require only the first, but the high trust ethics of Protestant require all five criteria. High trust ethics (and human in-group moral instinct) require that we eschew free riding (parasitism) and the only means of doing so, is to require exchanges be internally and externally productive. Under rothbardian ethics it is possible to profit without contribution to production, and to exist entirely parasitically. ie: his ethics are parasitic.

  • Rothbardian Ethics are Parasitic

    1) Ghetto ethics only require that the exchange is voluntary. 2) They do not require that the exchange is productive, only that parties are satisfied. (blackmail for example is not productive.) 3) They do not require fully informed exchange backed by warranty. (they allow lying and cheating and information holding) 4) They do not prohibit profiting from harm, or causing harm (Usury for example.) 5) They do not require that the exchange is free of externality. Parasitic ethics of rothbard require only the first, but the high trust ethics of Protestant require all five criteria. High trust ethics (and human in-group moral instinct) require that we eschew free riding (parasitism) and the only means of doing so, is to require exchanges be internally and externally productive. Under rothbardian ethics it is possible to profit without contribution to production, and to exist entirely parasitically. ie: his ethics are parasitic.

  • The End Of Ghetto Libertarianism

    [F]acts: 1) Praxeology is a pseudoscience 2) Rothbardian ethics are parasitic 3) Argumentation is descriptive not causal. 4) Private property alone is insufficient to eliminate demand for the state 5) Rights cannot exist without context of contract. 6) Property is what remains when all free riding is forcibly suppressed, meaning that it’s not a binary proposition open to intersubjective verifiability. 7) The Absolute Nuclear Family is necessary for suppression of demand for the state, and therefore liberty is the desire of a permanent minority who practice the ANF. Libertarianism was yet another pseudoscientific failure. Ethical Realism, Propertarianism, and Aristocratic Egalitarianism correct the errors of immoral libertarianism.