Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Yes We Need A New Mathematical Revolution On The Scale Of Calculus : The Unit Of Commensurability In That Mathematics, Is Property, And Its Grammar Is Morality

    The mathematical order of big data? Property. 1) Humans (life) is acquisitive. 2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things. 3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire. 4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions. 5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer) 6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under. 6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it. (I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.) http://shar.es/QBhQ0

  • Yes We Need A New Mathematical Revolution On The Scale Of Calculus : The Unit Of Commensurability In That Mathematics, Is Property, And Its Grammar Is Morality

    The mathematical order of big data? Property. 1) Humans (life) is acquisitive. 2) Humans seek to acquire a limited number of categories of things. from experiences (feelings), to information, affection, mates, associates, and all manner of material things. 3) Human seek to avoid losses – more so than to acquire. especially life, children, kin, and mates, but also anything else that they have acted to acquire. 4) Humans must cooperate, and seek to cooperate, in the pursuit of their acquisitions. 5) The problem of cooperation for humans(all life) outside of kin, is the prevention of, and suppression of, free riding (involuntary transfer) 6) Humans develop layers of complex rules (myths, traditions, habits, manners, ethics, morals, and common laws) to assist in cooperating in whatever structure of production they exist under. 6) All human language can be expressed in a grammar. Even the most complex and abstract ideas can be expressed in the grammar of acquisition and cooperation we commonly call ‘property’: “That in which we have acted to acquire, and the moral (legal) constraints under which we have done it. (I kind of wonder if this allows us to get past the comprehension limits of juries. At present, the trick is to have enough money, to afford to overwhelm the cognitive processing ability of the jury. It may be possible to analyze for example, a large trial, and produce a mathematical reduction of it, into terms that the jury can comprehend. The trial is still required, but we can reduce its complexity to an analogy to experience.) http://shar.es/QBhQ0

  • The Aristocratic Ethic Of Voluntary Exchange. (BHL Part 2)

    (Draft: I have almost got this worked out. Not quite. But almost) If you believe that voluntary exchange is the test of moral action, then it’s only logical that you follow that reasoning through to its logical consequence: that property rights are obtained by exchanging them with one another; and that in order to exchange those rights, voluntarily, one must possess an incentive to do so – or at least, no disincentive not to. Since property rights describe prohibitions on involuntary transfer of property on a scale from the very basic forms of: murder, violence, destruction and theft, to the more complex forms of theft by fraud, omission, obscurantism, impediment, externalization, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, conspiracy, and conquest – each of us can grant different people different rights as we choose. And we do. We generally grant friends, family and associates greater rights, and others lesser rights, and foes none at all. The more dependent we are on members outside of the family and close relationships for our economic survival and prosperity, the more valuable is the extension of property rights to others, because those rights reduce transaction costs. In a world of shop keepers and craftsmen producing complex goods for one another, everyone has equal incentives. In a world of 50% unemployed poor 40% labor and clerical, 9% professional and executive, and 1% financial, it is very hard to see why the unemployed poor are not wiser to form some means of extraction from those with more. Trade is merely the best form of obtaining what we desire, but it is not the only. I don’t see much difference between Walter Block’s ghetto ethic justification of blackmail and the Danegeld. None at all. I don’t see any difference between profiting from the tragedy of others, and organizing an extractive state. That’s because there isn’t any difference. To demand property rights from someone without compensation is in itself, an act of attempted theft. This is not because the demand violates some abstract concept of the common good. The only common good we know of is increasing cooperation in a division of knowledge and labor while constantly suppressing free riding on others. Instead, it’s because (a) while in exchange, higher respect for property rights decreases transaction costs because it decreases risk, but also (b) the more divergent are our interests the higher the compensation each party must offer for the observation of property rights by the other. Conversely, the more identical are our interests, the lower the compensation each party must offer for the observation of property rights by the other. That is, in practice, what we humans do. In every society we know of. Ever. THE RATIONAL CHOICE TO COOPERATE If I grant you respect for property rights, don’t know why I would do that if all I was buying was protection from violence fraud and theft, and not buying trust and therefore protection from blackmail, fraud by omission, fraud by obscurantism, free riding, rent seeking, because corruption, because only the very WEAK would do that, and only out of desperation. (People of the Ghetto) I don’t really understand why I would give up the opportunity to kill, steal, enslave, or otherwise entertain myself with you if I still had to worry about your behavior. Or inversely, why would it be rational for me to grant you property rights if that meant that you could lie, cheat, deceive, engage in corruption and engage in blackmail? The assumption of humility necessary for us to abandon violence and enter into debate; or the necessary grace we must display in our homogenous polity most of which is an extended family, is, as Hoppe shows in Argumentation, based upon the prior assumption of the grant of property rights. However, we should not assume that the consequence is the cause: we only grant each other the grace and humility because we have already agreed to put away our violence, deception and coercion. But for what reason have we all, given our different talents, numbers, and tribal abilities, chosen to grant one another those rights in the first place? Trust. Trust reduces transaction costs and the velocity of production. The division of labor saves time an increases velocity. Trust saves time and therefore increases velocity. It is possible to possess a division of labor in a low trust society, but it’s velocity (wealth) will be limited. Whereas, if one increases trust and reduces transaction costs and that group will outcompete all other groups with less trust. We have freed up man from physical labor. POLITICS: EXTENDING IN-GROUP SUPPRESSION TO OUT-GROUP MEMBERS The problem of politics, is providing an institutional means by which to accomplish this goal while preserving the low transaction costs of the high trust society. The problem for human’s evolutionary psychology was the balance between free riding and cooperation. The problem we face in our institutions is conducting that balance between free riding and cooperation. ALL our advances in cooperation: morality, the division of labor, law, money, prices, contracts, interest, accounting – all of them – are extensions of our ability to cooperate in larger numbers while sensing and perceiving free riding. So if we no longer have common interests in the preservation of property rights against the monopoly state, we must purchase that common interest in the preservation of property rights and diminishing the monopoly state, by paying those who have LESS interest in preserving those rights to police those rights. Depriving those who do not respect or police property of that payment. And forcing restitution, punishing, ostracizing, and if necessary, exterminating those people who persist in violating property rights. That payment is moral, because it is a voluntary exchange. Asking those with no rational interest in liberty to choose self deprivation rather than engaging in statism is not only irrational, and immoral, but it’s a use of obscurant language to conduct theft by fraud. We can either break into a multitude of small communities with heterogenous sets of property rights, or we can pay large communities (large markets) to participate in the formation and preservation of property rights. But we must abandon the obscurantist, fraudulent, parasitic lie of Rothbardian ghetto ethics to do it. The source of liberty is the organized application of violence by a minority willing to pay the high price of suppressing all free riding in all its forms from a population in exchange for property rights. What remains at the end of that suppression is some system of property rights. The highest form of suppression eliminates the need for the state entirely. But it requires we suppress every single means of involuntary extraction from others. THE EQUAL AND UNEQUAL VALUE OF INDIVIDUALS In a heterogeneous polity that makes use of natural sources of energy to replace labor, and that uses technology to replace clerical work, the vast majority of people serve only three functions: 1) as consumers; 2) as police of property in all its forms; 3) to provide care of the commons; 4) to provide care and service for others. The work of production has increasingly fallen to a minority. But the organization of voluntary and dynamic production, and the constitution of liberty, cannot be obtained without paying them for their services, since they no longer have the opportunity to engage in worthwhile production as compensation for their policing of property, care of the commons, and service of others. If any member of the population chooses to police, care, and serve then they are due dividends from production. Otherwise they are merely slaves.

  • The Aristocratic Ethic Of Voluntary Exchange. (BHL Part 2)

    (Draft: I have almost got this worked out. Not quite. But almost) If you believe that voluntary exchange is the test of moral action, then it’s only logical that you follow that reasoning through to its logical consequence: that property rights are obtained by exchanging them with one another; and that in order to exchange those rights, voluntarily, one must possess an incentive to do so – or at least, no disincentive not to. Since property rights describe prohibitions on involuntary transfer of property on a scale from the very basic forms of: murder, violence, destruction and theft, to the more complex forms of theft by fraud, omission, obscurantism, impediment, externalization, free riding, rent seeking, corruption, conspiracy, and conquest – each of us can grant different people different rights as we choose. And we do. We generally grant friends, family and associates greater rights, and others lesser rights, and foes none at all. The more dependent we are on members outside of the family and close relationships for our economic survival and prosperity, the more valuable is the extension of property rights to others, because those rights reduce transaction costs. In a world of shop keepers and craftsmen producing complex goods for one another, everyone has equal incentives. In a world of 50% unemployed poor 40% labor and clerical, 9% professional and executive, and 1% financial, it is very hard to see why the unemployed poor are not wiser to form some means of extraction from those with more. Trade is merely the best form of obtaining what we desire, but it is not the only. I don’t see much difference between Walter Block’s ghetto ethic justification of blackmail and the Danegeld. None at all. I don’t see any difference between profiting from the tragedy of others, and organizing an extractive state. That’s because there isn’t any difference. To demand property rights from someone without compensation is in itself, an act of attempted theft. This is not because the demand violates some abstract concept of the common good. The only common good we know of is increasing cooperation in a division of knowledge and labor while constantly suppressing free riding on others. Instead, it’s because (a) while in exchange, higher respect for property rights decreases transaction costs because it decreases risk, but also (b) the more divergent are our interests the higher the compensation each party must offer for the observation of property rights by the other. Conversely, the more identical are our interests, the lower the compensation each party must offer for the observation of property rights by the other. That is, in practice, what we humans do. In every society we know of. Ever. THE RATIONAL CHOICE TO COOPERATE If I grant you respect for property rights, don’t know why I would do that if all I was buying was protection from violence fraud and theft, and not buying trust and therefore protection from blackmail, fraud by omission, fraud by obscurantism, free riding, rent seeking, because corruption, because only the very WEAK would do that, and only out of desperation. (People of the Ghetto) I don’t really understand why I would give up the opportunity to kill, steal, enslave, or otherwise entertain myself with you if I still had to worry about your behavior. Or inversely, why would it be rational for me to grant you property rights if that meant that you could lie, cheat, deceive, engage in corruption and engage in blackmail? The assumption of humility necessary for us to abandon violence and enter into debate; or the necessary grace we must display in our homogenous polity most of which is an extended family, is, as Hoppe shows in Argumentation, based upon the prior assumption of the grant of property rights. However, we should not assume that the consequence is the cause: we only grant each other the grace and humility because we have already agreed to put away our violence, deception and coercion. But for what reason have we all, given our different talents, numbers, and tribal abilities, chosen to grant one another those rights in the first place? Trust. Trust reduces transaction costs and the velocity of production. The division of labor saves time an increases velocity. Trust saves time and therefore increases velocity. It is possible to possess a division of labor in a low trust society, but it’s velocity (wealth) will be limited. Whereas, if one increases trust and reduces transaction costs and that group will outcompete all other groups with less trust. We have freed up man from physical labor. POLITICS: EXTENDING IN-GROUP SUPPRESSION TO OUT-GROUP MEMBERS The problem of politics, is providing an institutional means by which to accomplish this goal while preserving the low transaction costs of the high trust society. The problem for human’s evolutionary psychology was the balance between free riding and cooperation. The problem we face in our institutions is conducting that balance between free riding and cooperation. ALL our advances in cooperation: morality, the division of labor, law, money, prices, contracts, interest, accounting – all of them – are extensions of our ability to cooperate in larger numbers while sensing and perceiving free riding. So if we no longer have common interests in the preservation of property rights against the monopoly state, we must purchase that common interest in the preservation of property rights and diminishing the monopoly state, by paying those who have LESS interest in preserving those rights to police those rights. Depriving those who do not respect or police property of that payment. And forcing restitution, punishing, ostracizing, and if necessary, exterminating those people who persist in violating property rights. That payment is moral, because it is a voluntary exchange. Asking those with no rational interest in liberty to choose self deprivation rather than engaging in statism is not only irrational, and immoral, but it’s a use of obscurant language to conduct theft by fraud. We can either break into a multitude of small communities with heterogenous sets of property rights, or we can pay large communities (large markets) to participate in the formation and preservation of property rights. But we must abandon the obscurantist, fraudulent, parasitic lie of Rothbardian ghetto ethics to do it. The source of liberty is the organized application of violence by a minority willing to pay the high price of suppressing all free riding in all its forms from a population in exchange for property rights. What remains at the end of that suppression is some system of property rights. The highest form of suppression eliminates the need for the state entirely. But it requires we suppress every single means of involuntary extraction from others. THE EQUAL AND UNEQUAL VALUE OF INDIVIDUALS In a heterogeneous polity that makes use of natural sources of energy to replace labor, and that uses technology to replace clerical work, the vast majority of people serve only three functions: 1) as consumers; 2) as police of property in all its forms; 3) to provide care of the commons; 4) to provide care and service for others. The work of production has increasingly fallen to a minority. But the organization of voluntary and dynamic production, and the constitution of liberty, cannot be obtained without paying them for their services, since they no longer have the opportunity to engage in worthwhile production as compensation for their policing of property, care of the commons, and service of others. If any member of the population chooses to police, care, and serve then they are due dividends from production. Otherwise they are merely slaves.

  • The Bleeding Heart Libertarians, Calculability, The Solution To Direct Redistribution (Part 1)

    Positioning Libertarian Ethics By Philosophical School 1) CLASSICAL “PSYCHOLOGICAL” (Smith,Hume,Locke,Burke)(BHL’s) 2) GHETTO COSMOPOLITAN (Rothbard), 3) CONTINENTAL RATIONAL (Hoppe), 4) ANGLO ANALYTIC (Doolitte), I keep intuitively wanting to classify the Bleeding Heart Libertarians led by Matt Zwolinski as right-continental rationals, but it’s pretty clear if you go through the past two years of articles on BHL, that their arguments are consistent with the classical psychological while borrowing arguments from everyone else where helpful. I pretty much agree with the BHL’s sentiments. But formal institutions that depend on psychological (and normative) moral intuition and belief, cannot possibly survive postmodern, obscurant, and pseudoscientific propaganda. Worse, they cannot survive the dissolution of the nuclear family. And it’s the nuclear family, or the Absolute Nuclear Family of the anglo tradition that is the primary source of our anglo american moral code. And in a world where immigrants no longer practice that family structure, where single mothers produce 40% of the population, and where ‘alternative marriages’ and ready divorce undermine the institution of the nuclear family, the moral intuitions upon which the Psychological School depends are statistically irrelevant. The family structure is the constructor of moral intuitions which merely direct and modify genetic and gender driven differences in moral sensitivity. Period. Conservatives were correct about the family and norms and we were not. In a democratic polity, where the majority can implement policy, the family structure of the majority will determine morality. And since morality determines property rights, no such property rights can exist within a democracy. We are in our current crisis because the American founders did not grasp the necessity and utility of the principle of calculability (no did any one until Weber). Had they for example, required original intent, and strict construction, and placed explicit authority in the common law, our world might be a very different place. At that time, given the state of science, and the prevalence of religious and poetic phrasing, it was impossible for them to grasp the concept of operational language as a necessary structure of all calculable statements. The BHL’s are not able to innovate per se, because they have no calculable and rational argumentative structure to rely upon. And so their arguments are victim to the moral predisposition their audience. But instead they are positioning libertarian arguments through sympathetic psychological contrasts and advocacy. Which is excellent marketing. And given the damage done by Rothbard’s morally reprehensible parasitic Ghetto Ethics to the cause of liberty, we certainly need good marketing. Propertarianism is not morally loaded. It’s analytic and calculable. In propertarian ethics I’ve placed the formal requirement for operational language. For that reason it isn’t morally aspirational – like most scientific argument it’s a little unsatisfying to reduce all human behavior to it’s physical properties – but it’s factually moral and defensible by science and reason. Whereas the Psychological model may advocate the correct ideas but they are not argumentatively powerful unless one is predisposed to agree with them. As such they are not arguments, but statements of confirmation bias. I have tried to provide the BHL’s with a Propertarian argument for redistribution. My argument requires full calculability from start to finish. And it fully warrants, justifies, explains in causal terms, why direct redistribution to consumers is necessary compensation mandated by respect for property rights. My criticism of the BHL’s to date has been limited (as my autistic arguments often are) to the fact that they are not contributing to innovation in libertarian theory, only to libertarian propaganda. Because I don’t disagree with their sentiments. I disagree with their Psychological School arguments. My hope is that at some point they will grasp that the formal logic of property is sufficient to justify their psychologically argued, and morally intuited ends. And they can back their good marketing with good science, reason, and institutional solutions that are calculable and therefore impervious to the multitudinous forms of fraud that are used by the obscurantist left both socialist, Postmodern, Feminist and whatever else they manage to invent. Property under Propertarianism is a scientifically moral, not rationally moral, or psychologically moral construct. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • The Bleeding Heart Libertarians, Calculability, The Solution To Direct Redistribution (Part 1)

    Positioning Libertarian Ethics By Philosophical School 1) CLASSICAL “PSYCHOLOGICAL” (Smith,Hume,Locke,Burke)(BHL’s) 2) GHETTO COSMOPOLITAN (Rothbard), 3) CONTINENTAL RATIONAL (Hoppe), 4) ANGLO ANALYTIC (Doolitte), I keep intuitively wanting to classify the Bleeding Heart Libertarians led by Matt Zwolinski as right-continental rationals, but it’s pretty clear if you go through the past two years of articles on BHL, that their arguments are consistent with the classical psychological while borrowing arguments from everyone else where helpful. I pretty much agree with the BHL’s sentiments. But formal institutions that depend on psychological (and normative) moral intuition and belief, cannot possibly survive postmodern, obscurant, and pseudoscientific propaganda. Worse, they cannot survive the dissolution of the nuclear family. And it’s the nuclear family, or the Absolute Nuclear Family of the anglo tradition that is the primary source of our anglo american moral code. And in a world where immigrants no longer practice that family structure, where single mothers produce 40% of the population, and where ‘alternative marriages’ and ready divorce undermine the institution of the nuclear family, the moral intuitions upon which the Psychological School depends are statistically irrelevant. The family structure is the constructor of moral intuitions which merely direct and modify genetic and gender driven differences in moral sensitivity. Period. Conservatives were correct about the family and norms and we were not. In a democratic polity, where the majority can implement policy, the family structure of the majority will determine morality. And since morality determines property rights, no such property rights can exist within a democracy. We are in our current crisis because the American founders did not grasp the necessity and utility of the principle of calculability (no did any one until Weber). Had they for example, required original intent, and strict construction, and placed explicit authority in the common law, our world might be a very different place. At that time, given the state of science, and the prevalence of religious and poetic phrasing, it was impossible for them to grasp the concept of operational language as a necessary structure of all calculable statements. The BHL’s are not able to innovate per se, because they have no calculable and rational argumentative structure to rely upon. And so their arguments are victim to the moral predisposition their audience. But instead they are positioning libertarian arguments through sympathetic psychological contrasts and advocacy. Which is excellent marketing. And given the damage done by Rothbard’s morally reprehensible parasitic Ghetto Ethics to the cause of liberty, we certainly need good marketing. Propertarianism is not morally loaded. It’s analytic and calculable. In propertarian ethics I’ve placed the formal requirement for operational language. For that reason it isn’t morally aspirational – like most scientific argument it’s a little unsatisfying to reduce all human behavior to it’s physical properties – but it’s factually moral and defensible by science and reason. Whereas the Psychological model may advocate the correct ideas but they are not argumentatively powerful unless one is predisposed to agree with them. As such they are not arguments, but statements of confirmation bias. I have tried to provide the BHL’s with a Propertarian argument for redistribution. My argument requires full calculability from start to finish. And it fully warrants, justifies, explains in causal terms, why direct redistribution to consumers is necessary compensation mandated by respect for property rights. My criticism of the BHL’s to date has been limited (as my autistic arguments often are) to the fact that they are not contributing to innovation in libertarian theory, only to libertarian propaganda. Because I don’t disagree with their sentiments. I disagree with their Psychological School arguments. My hope is that at some point they will grasp that the formal logic of property is sufficient to justify their psychologically argued, and morally intuited ends. And they can back their good marketing with good science, reason, and institutional solutions that are calculable and therefore impervious to the multitudinous forms of fraud that are used by the obscurantist left both socialist, Postmodern, Feminist and whatever else they manage to invent. Property under Propertarianism is a scientifically moral, not rationally moral, or psychologically moral construct. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • 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.

  • Equality And Inequality In Propertarianism

    We may be unequally valuable to one another in the marketplace. That’s just an empirically obvious fact. We may be unequally capable of mastering and applying skills, interpreting current events, planning successfully for the future, and adhering to those plans. We may be unequally desirable as family members, friends, mates and associates. That too is an obvious fact. But we are EQUALLY VALUABLE and EQUALLY DESIRABLE as universal suppressors of free riding, rent seeking, fraud and crime. Moral theory does not separate our productive, reproductive, associative, and institutional values that each of us brings. Property rights theory does not separate our different values either, because when these ideas were developed we were economically indifferent except in our willingness to work hard and discipline ourselves. Economic reward in our civilization is based almost entirely upon our economic performance. But increasingly, we are unequal in our economic performance – and because labor is, and always has been, of little value, this inequality will only continue to increase. However, we are rewarded unequally for our unequal economic contribution. But that economic contribution, in our society, is predicated on the persistence of the high trust society, whereby we participate in the absolute nuclear family structure, and we are each responsible for the restraint from, prohibition upon, and policing of crime, free riding, rent seeking, corruption and conquest, in all walks of life. As such, it seems irrational that people pay the high cost of not engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest behaviors, yet are not rewarded for them. The libertarian argument suggests that respect for these criminal, ethical, moral and political rules merely grants one access to society and market. But that is a hard argument to make. The productive could not produce without the efforts of the unproductive in maintaining the prohibitions. SO why not pay them for it, and not pay them when they fail? This is the basic argument that the Left Libertarians (bleeding heart libertarians) fail to make.

  • Equality And Inequality In Propertarianism

    We may be unequally valuable to one another in the marketplace. That’s just an empirically obvious fact. We may be unequally capable of mastering and applying skills, interpreting current events, planning successfully for the future, and adhering to those plans. We may be unequally desirable as family members, friends, mates and associates. That too is an obvious fact. But we are EQUALLY VALUABLE and EQUALLY DESIRABLE as universal suppressors of free riding, rent seeking, fraud and crime. Moral theory does not separate our productive, reproductive, associative, and institutional values that each of us brings. Property rights theory does not separate our different values either, because when these ideas were developed we were economically indifferent except in our willingness to work hard and discipline ourselves. Economic reward in our civilization is based almost entirely upon our economic performance. But increasingly, we are unequal in our economic performance – and because labor is, and always has been, of little value, this inequality will only continue to increase. However, we are rewarded unequally for our unequal economic contribution. But that economic contribution, in our society, is predicated on the persistence of the high trust society, whereby we participate in the absolute nuclear family structure, and we are each responsible for the restraint from, prohibition upon, and policing of crime, free riding, rent seeking, corruption and conquest, in all walks of life. As such, it seems irrational that people pay the high cost of not engaging in criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial and conquest behaviors, yet are not rewarded for them. The libertarian argument suggests that respect for these criminal, ethical, moral and political rules merely grants one access to society and market. But that is a hard argument to make. The productive could not produce without the efforts of the unproductive in maintaining the prohibitions. SO why not pay them for it, and not pay them when they fail? This is the basic argument that the Left Libertarians (bleeding heart libertarians) fail to make.