Theme: Property

  • PROPERTY, IN ALL ITS FORMS RENDERS ALL HUMAN ACTION MORALLY COMMENSURABLE. While

    PROPERTY, IN ALL ITS FORMS RENDERS ALL HUMAN ACTION MORALLY COMMENSURABLE.

    While PREFERENCES and SUBJECTIVE VALUE are not commensurable, that does not mean that moral actions in favor of, or against, NORMS are cannot be commensurable.

    Norms are a market. They are, perhaps, our first market. And our commercial market exists, as an analogistic response to it. This is somewhat supportable by comparing the normative economies, political economies, and commercial economies of different civilizations.

    If I can distill the significance of propertarianism down to something I can communicate this simply, then it will serve a function that we have been searching for, since the invention of politics.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-15 13:01:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.propertarians.com/what-is-propertarianism/PROPERTARIANISM


    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-02 22:59:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM allows us to discourse on what people from different political b

    PROPERTARIANISM allows us to discourse on what people from different political biases ‘believe’ in rational terms that are commensurable.

    Thats something very special in the history of thought.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-02 10:01:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/09/the-case-for-abolishing-patents-yes-all-of-them/262913/


    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-28 06:56:00 UTC

  • LEFT = LAWS : Redistribute income RIGHT = NORMS : Redistribute norms LIBERTARIAN

    LEFT = LAWS : Redistribute income

    RIGHT = NORMS : Redistribute norms

    LIBERTARIAN = PROPERTY : Redistribute liberty


    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-24 20:02:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM AND INSTITUTIONS The mysterious criticism that libertarians decry

    LIBERTARIANISM AND INSTITUTIONS

    The mysterious criticism that libertarians decry all institutions is a false one. And if it were true, it would be self contradictory. Property is an institution, even if only an informal one. One cannot both argue that institutions are unnecessary, or universally malicious when property itself is an institution.

    And morals are institutions too, even if they are all, in the final analysis derivations of the institution of property as it is implemented by different groups. This fact helps us understand why some moral codes are superior to others: private, several property both allows more calculation of opportunities, and provides the incentive to act upon them

    Formal institutions are not contrary to liberty. Tribal leaders who resolve conflicts, and independent judges are institutions. A code of common law is an institution. A network of banks, and the practice of interest are institutions And perhaps the least intuitive to westerners who live within these institutions, the informal institution of objective truth, its implementation as truth telling, as well as the institution of ethical universalism by which we forgo opportunities to benefit self, family, and tribe, and restrict ourselves to actions that can be subject to the market – a counter-intuitive concept which we live every day, is the source of the germanic west’s limited corruption by comparison to other cultures. And the realization that our ethics is governed by the market rather than self, family or tribe, is alien to westerners who cannot conceive of any alternative way of thinking.

    If a group of people create a homeowners association, or found a new city, o even a new country, as long as they deprive no one else of property, either directly or indirectly by doing so, even if the formation of a such a contract is one to which all members and their guests and progeny must adhere, is not a violation of liberty. Even if they, like shopping mall owners, require that visitors and new members abide by that contract.

    These are all forms of institutions. So, institutions are not prohibited by the desire for liberty. It is not institutions themselves that eradicate liberty, since liberty is the result of the institution of property. It is human beings functioning within a bureaucracy that comprises an institution that eradicates liberty. Bureaucracies must of necessity, out of a lack of choice, act for the purpose of perpetuating the institution itself, or for the purpose of simplifying the job of its members. And both self perpetuation and self service are caused by the monopoly power granted to these institutions, when they are insulated from competition.

    Because while rules are abstractions which of themselves have no self interest to express, people are real things, and in the midst of complexity, have no cognitive choice but to rely upon simple rules of thumb, instinct, self interest and moral judgement.

    And those moral judgements, because of genetic necessity, vary. To argue otherwise is simply advocating totalitarian eugenics, while making the error that we are in fact materially equal, rather than equal in our right to property. That is, by the extension of enfranchisement to the lower classes, those with alternative allocations of property rights, those with habits of familialism and tribalism, and in particular, with the addition of women to the pool of voters and to the market for consumption, production and trade, – for whom males possess a polar reproductives strategy, all have quite different moral codes. Ad those moral codes are a gene expression. We have given those with alternative moral codes, the freedom to alter the western definitions of property rights to favor their preferred method of gene expression. And the more natural one. Aristocracy, that is, meritocracy, is a rarity. Just as are truth telling, and universalism.

    Bureaucracy was created to enforce homogeneity. And we are no longer homogenous. Any bureaucratic institution that exists to create homogeneity is by definition immoral, and enforcing not just self service, but self service by forced involuntary transfer from some to others, which in turn violates not just our property rights but our genetic composition and rights of reproduction. Rather than a bureaucracy of homogeneity, the only rule a population needs is several, personal, property, and the means by which to resolve conflicts over its transfer, and the willingness of some individuals to use their capacity for violence to maintain that right to personal property.

    So it is bureaucracy that is the threat to our freedom. When we criticize government broadly, we are making a mistake that confuses people outside the movement. A government is a set of institutions that assist people in cooperating in a division of knowledge and labor. It is the institutions that allow us to express and make use of the institution of property. As such a government is not necessarily bad, as Rothbard’s diasporic voluntarism, and Hoppe’s private government have show us. Is not government in the abstract then that is systemically corrupting of man. It is the abrogation of property rights and the very existence of a bureaucracy within a bureaucratic state that sap our liberty and all that follows from it.

    -Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-14 20:40:00 UTC

  • HANS HOPPE’S NEW BOOK “THE GREAT FICTION” I joined the Jeff Tucker’s new club ju

    HANS HOPPE’S NEW BOOK “THE GREAT FICTION”

    I joined the Jeff Tucker’s new club just so that I could get the book immediately on my iphone rather than wait a few days for a hard copy of it. I suppose that’s the most fannish behavior I’ve ever demonstrated in my life. But then, I feel I’ve learned almost everything of value about political philosophy from Hoppe, and that’s more respectable than being a fan of a hair band, and certainly more so than an advocate of a politician.

    It’s mostly just a case of crowing that I’ve already got The Great Fiction. I’m sure others have too – probably before I have. But I still feel like a kid who got tickets to a concert after waiting in line for three days.

    I’ve only managed to make time to savor four chapters so far, and none of them is from the new material he’s included. But it seems to be better written or at least, better edited. And as such, I think the book is eminently accessible. Something that The Economics and Ethics of Private Property is unfortunately not. But then, that books is an argument, and The Great Fiction appears to be wisdom.

    In one chapter, he creates such a wonderful narrative about the difficulty in bridging intellectual disciplines, and you can hear the subtle disappointment with mankind that has come with his age, where once would have been the bravado challenge and opportunity for demonstrating one’s intellect.

    Unfortunately, while Hoppe’s intellectual personality comes across better in this book than his prior tomes, I feel a slight loss for those people who only come to know him through his works, rather than his lectures. Because in person he makes the irony of history and our folly with it, come alive with both humor, wit and insight. He ridicules the folly of our human vanity, so that we may comfortably step back and see our most cherished beliefs as patently objectively falsehoods no less mythical than our fairy tales.

    I’m savoring these essays, and I don’t want them used up too soon. As a kid, I’d carefully save the halloween candy, so I’d always have some around until Easter. The Great Fiction is this fall’s bag of treats, and begs the same treatment. 🙂

    Curt Doolittle.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-09-09 16:46:00 UTC

  • ON DAWKINS: THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PROPERTARIAN LIBERTARIAN LANGUAGE

    http://www.youtube.com/comment?lc=Jb5710g4e6zNsbln0KYCrwvbbpebYN70xdFGO6Dg4xkRIFFING ON DAWKINS: THE TEN COMMANDMENTS IN PROPERTARIAN LIBERTARIAN LANGUAGE


    Source date (UTC): 2012-08-16 20:50:00 UTC

  • Rothbard Must Be Understood In His Context

    From No Comuna. A subtle criticism of criticism of Rothbard.

    Children and rights In the Ethics of Liberty Rothbard explores in terms of self-ownership and contract several contentious issues relating to the rights of children. These include women’s right to abortion, the prohibition of aggression of parents against children, as well as the question of the State forcing parents to take care of children, including those with serious health problems. He also argues that children have the right to “escape” of parents and seek new guardians so choose to do so. Suggested that parents have the right to place a child for adoption, or even sell their rights to the child in a voluntary agreement. He also discusses how the current juvenile justice system punishes children for making “adult” choices, removes children unnecessarily and against their will from their parents, often putting them under bad care. In other writings Rothbard also supports the right of children to work at any age, in part by supporting his release of parents or other authorities.

    A SUBTLE CRITICISM Rothbard was trying to create an internally consistent theory of rights. He was successful in doing so. However, as with any theory of rights, we are certainly able to bend or break those rights to suit our tastes. There is a difference between perfection and pragmatism. But one must have a theory in order to make decisions. I think it is useful to understand Rothbard in this light. He succeeded in creating an internally consistent theory of rights. If we deem it practical to violate those rights in order to achieve some good, then that is our choice.

  • WE GRANT OUR VIOLENCE TO THE STATE IN EXCHANGE FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS And should th

    WE GRANT OUR VIOLENCE TO THE STATE IN EXCHANGE FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS

    And should the state no longer preserve those rights, we may deem the contract broken, and put our violence to other uses that will obtain us those rights.


    Source date (UTC): 2012-06-28 15:17:00 UTC