[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.
Theme: Property
-
Profound Propertarian Insight
[E]nlightenment Political and economic ethics, whether under classical liberal, libertarian, socialist and ‘dishonest socialist (keynesian)’ theory are predicated on the two assumptions (a)that moral and ethical behavior are ‘givens’ that we must agree upon, and that (b) our labors in the act of production are the means by which we earn rewards. This logic assumes that entry into, and participation in the market (society, the order in which cooperation is possible), is all that one obtains for one’s constant payment of the costs of respecting property and other norms. However, norms that permit property rights, and norms that permit trust (low transaction costs), and norms that prohibit conspiracy, are as equal in value in creating a polity in which the voluntary organization of production (capitalism) is possible. Respect for property rights, eschewing corruption and conspiracy, and demonstrating honestly, are all costs that the individual must bear. And he must bear them prior to any participation in production. But if it is not possible for the individual to participate in the market (and it demonstrably is not), then entry into the market is not POSSIBLE, and as such it is non-rational for that individual to pay the very high costs of entry into that market. And therefore demands that they respect for property, honesty, and combat against conspiracy and corruption are simply attempts at theft of their opportunity, time and effort, without compensation. As such, the alternative is to pay people to respect property rights, demonstrate honesty, eschew corruption and conspiracy, so that they work to enable the voluntary organization of production (capitalism), and function as consumers – to pay people to construct a society, polity, and economy, wherein the dynamic voluntary organization of production is possible. [P]eople who enforce and respect property rights, manners, ethics, morals and norms, do so at a cost. The benefit of capitalism for everyone, is that production can be cheaply (low transaction costs) organized dynamically and voluntarily. However, if we cannot equally participate in the market (as we did under labor and farming) then the only alternative is to pay people for the work of facilitating the dynamic and voluntary organization of production. Those people, paid as such, will have the same interests as producers: to minimize state consumption of the fruits of productivity. That logic can be attacked from any number of angles but in the end, the result will be the same. You cannot make an operational argument in favor of property rights and at the same time defeat this argument. (Or you can try a lot, but it won’t work.) Conversely, telling people that they must pay high costs for rights that they cannot make use of is merely theft by capitalist means.
-
Profound Propertarian Insight
[E]nlightenment Political and economic ethics, whether under classical liberal, libertarian, socialist and ‘dishonest socialist (keynesian)’ theory are predicated on the two assumptions (a)that moral and ethical behavior are ‘givens’ that we must agree upon, and that (b) our labors in the act of production are the means by which we earn rewards. This logic assumes that entry into, and participation in the market (society, the order in which cooperation is possible), is all that one obtains for one’s constant payment of the costs of respecting property and other norms. However, norms that permit property rights, and norms that permit trust (low transaction costs), and norms that prohibit conspiracy, are as equal in value in creating a polity in which the voluntary organization of production (capitalism) is possible. Respect for property rights, eschewing corruption and conspiracy, and demonstrating honestly, are all costs that the individual must bear. And he must bear them prior to any participation in production. But if it is not possible for the individual to participate in the market (and it demonstrably is not), then entry into the market is not POSSIBLE, and as such it is non-rational for that individual to pay the very high costs of entry into that market. And therefore demands that they respect for property, honesty, and combat against conspiracy and corruption are simply attempts at theft of their opportunity, time and effort, without compensation. As such, the alternative is to pay people to respect property rights, demonstrate honesty, eschew corruption and conspiracy, so that they work to enable the voluntary organization of production (capitalism), and function as consumers – to pay people to construct a society, polity, and economy, wherein the dynamic voluntary organization of production is possible. [P]eople who enforce and respect property rights, manners, ethics, morals and norms, do so at a cost. The benefit of capitalism for everyone, is that production can be cheaply (low transaction costs) organized dynamically and voluntarily. However, if we cannot equally participate in the market (as we did under labor and farming) then the only alternative is to pay people for the work of facilitating the dynamic and voluntary organization of production. Those people, paid as such, will have the same interests as producers: to minimize state consumption of the fruits of productivity. That logic can be attacked from any number of angles but in the end, the result will be the same. You cannot make an operational argument in favor of property rights and at the same time defeat this argument. (Or you can try a lot, but it won’t work.) Conversely, telling people that they must pay high costs for rights that they cannot make use of is merely theft by capitalist means.
-
Why Do Property Rights “Work”?
[P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
-
Why Do Property Rights "Work"?
[P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
-
Why Do Property Rights “Work”?
[P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
-
Why Do Property Rights "Work"?
[P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.
-
Libertarian Non-logic Of 'Rights'
[Y]ou know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights. See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that? Because it’s true. You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights, from those who would deny them.
-
Libertarian Non-logic Of ‘Rights’
[Y]ou know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights. See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that? Because it’s true. You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights, from those who would deny them.
-
Libertarian Non-logic Of 'Rights'
[Y]ou know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights. See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that? Because it’s true. You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights, from those who would deny them.