Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • THE DIBILITATING LIBERTARIAN DEPENDENCE ON ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTARIANISM AND THE NA

    http://c4ss.org/content/23175ENDING THE DIBILITATING LIBERTARIAN DEPENDENCE ON ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTARIANISM AND THE NAP

    All,

    *Ending the debilitating libertarian dependence on Rothbardian Libertarianism and the NAP.*

    There is a very great difference between a general rule of thumb, and the necessary basis for a body of law whose properties are reducible to property rights, that are sufficient for the resolution of conflicts between individuals, such that they do not desire an authority to resolve or prevent conflicts via means other than the law reducible to property rights. Furthermore, the means of violation of a persons’ property is not, as Hoppe has demonstrated, important, but instead, the definition of property regardless of how it is violated. To define property by aggression is to confuse cause and consequence. Aggression (NAP) against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (IVP) as the basis for the law and resolution of disputes, is not only insufficient in the coverage of human disputes that require resolution, but NAP/IVP licenses deception and externalities, and prohibits retaliation for deception (unethical) and externalities(immoral). Meaning that objectively, the NAP/IVP licenses deception(unethical) and externalized (immoral) actions. The fact that very few human beings seem to be able to rationally articulate that NAP/IVP is immoral, or that Aggression is an insufficient prohibition for constraining unethical and immoral trade, or that defining property by means of prohibition rather than its origin as human action is non-logical, doesn’t seem to alter the fact, that the majority of humans simply intuit that something is ‘wrong’ with Rothbardian Libertarian Ethics.

    Jan Lester has taken the logical route to define property as logically reflecting human actions, and quite nearly found the correct answer with ‘imposed costs’ – at least he has been closer than anyone else. However, as we have stated above, we must reduce imposed costs, up what precisely? We must have a definition of property to impose costs against. (He does, but it’s not sufficient either – and will clarify in a moment.)

    So how do we define property that can be transgressed against; upon which we prohibit the imposition of costs; and limit legal transfers to and from, to voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange?

    We can try to rely upon reason, or we can instead, look empirically at what is necessary for the elimination of demand for the state. My first question is, how do we eliminate the state, by eliminating demand for the state? It is not “what should we ask people to believe?” But what basis of organic law is sufficient for elimination of demand for the state as either a suppressor of unethical and immoral action, or a suppressor of retaliation for unethical and immoral actions, regardless of what people believe or desire.

    Now, while It is difficult to imagine people wanting to enter into contracts that permit unethical behavior, if people want to enter into contracts that license various forms of immoral behavior, then that is entirely permissible – in fact it is desirable. It allows us to ‘trade’ immoralities between classes. It sets terms and limits on immoral behavior, gives contractual license, but does not redefine the fact that immoral behavior is in fact, the involuntary transfer, or consumption, of paid in capital, or the ‘imposition of costs’ upon others. As such contractual exchange allows us to conduct voluntary exchanges of ‘immoral behavior’ via market means. When no other such means of exchange is possible. So if you were to choose some normative violation, as long as you exchanged contractual terms with some other class, an exchange occurs, not a violation of property rights.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 05:47:00 UTC

  • Buyer Beware vs Seller Beware

    PROPERTARIAN ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS (worth repeating) –“Under rothbardian ethics the buyer must beware, and under propertarian ethics the seller must beware. Propertarian ethics put warranty in the hands of the person with the greatest knowledge and therefore produces the least asymmetry of knowledge. ‘ — Propertarian ethics solve the problem of libertarian morality.

  • Buyer Beware vs Seller Beware

    PROPERTARIAN ETHICS VS ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS (worth repeating) –“Under rothbardian ethics the buyer must beware, and under propertarian ethics the seller must beware. Propertarian ethics put warranty in the hands of the person with the greatest knowledge and therefore produces the least asymmetry of knowledge. ‘ — Propertarian ethics solve the problem of libertarian morality.

  • FOR TOM WOODS: ON THICK AND THIN Tom, Great of you to weigh in on this topic. Yo

    FOR TOM WOODS: ON THICK AND THIN

    Tom,

    Great of you to weigh in on this topic. You’ve also provided Rothbardians with an ‘out’ that I didn’t think of. That the NAP is fullness of libertarianism but not the fullness of life. I’d thought that the only ‘out’ was that rothbardian libertarianism was sufficient for the moral interaction of states, but insufficient for the construction of a polity.

    THE PROBLEM IS LAW

    It’s true that aggression is immoral and it’s true that aggression must be illegal. But is it rational for humans to join a voluntary, anarchic polity, if the basis of **LAW** is “non-aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property”, or must the basis of law be either based on something other than aggression, or broader in scope than intersubjectively verifiable property?

    What is the minimum basis for the law upon which it becomes rational to join a voluntary, anarchic polity?

    If we have a choice between:

    (a) a totalitarian capitalist society, like say, China.

    (b) a contemporary social democracy, like say the States.

    (c) an anarchic polity in which one CAN bring suit against immoral and unethical actions (say, blackmail, and fraud by omission).

    (d) an anarchic polity where unethical and immoral actions are expressly licensed by the law, and retribution for immoral and unethical actions is forbidden.

    1) Then which of these will which people of which moral biases, choose?

    2) How will members of that polity be treated by members of the competing polities?

    3) How will the territory and trade representatives of that polity be treated by competing polities?

    I think that an intellectually honest analysis of those questions produces an obvious, and remarkably consistent answer. That is, that either aggression is the incorrect test of peaceful cooperation, or intersubjectively verifiable property is an insufficient test of the scope of property that must be protected from violation, or more likely both.

    The current proceeds of anthropology, genetics, and cognitive science, tell us that violations of the evolutionary preference for cooperation, are reducible to ‘free riding’: that is non-contribution. Since in any set of individuals, if we do not require productive contribution, then some are the victims of free riding (parasitism) and others benefit from free riding (parasitism).

    MORALITY

    If we analyze the common prohibitions of all moral codes under all family structures, and we remove moral constraints that are purely ritualistic, these moral codes are universally reducible to necessary prohibitions on what we would call ‘property violations’ in an effort to facilitate mutually beneficial cooperation.

    Moral Prohibition Spectra:

    1) Agression: Harm/Oppression,

    2) Trust: Subversion/Betrayal/Cheating,

    3) Purity: Inobservance of Norms/Behavioral impurity/Pollution

    All of these are reducible to shareholder rights and obligations.

    Humans universally demonstrate a greater interest in punishing moral violations than we demonstrate self interest. IN fact, we justify our pre-cognitive moral punishments without even being able to articulate why we hold them. We are wired for morality.

    We evolved language and punishments violations of these moral intuitions in the form of criminal, ethical, and moral prohibitions:

    1. Violence (asymmetry of force)

    2. Theft (asymmetry of control)

    3. Fraud (false information)

    4. Omission (Omitting information)

    5. Obscurantism (Obscuring information)

    6. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)

    7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)

    8. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)

    9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)

    10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)

    11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)

    12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)

    13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)

    14. Extortion (Organized direct theft)

    15. War (organized violence)

    PROPERTY

    We can empirically observe that people treat a broad spectrum of things as their property, and that they intuit violations of that property, and act to defend that property.

    I. Several (Personal) Property

    Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    Physical Body and Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

    II. Artificial Property

    Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)

    Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).

    III. Kin and Interpersonal (Relationship) Property

    Mates (access to sex/reproduction)

    Children (genetic reproduction)

    Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)

    IV Status and Class (reputation)

    Social Status

    Reputation

    V. Institutional (Community) Property

    (i) Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

    (ii)Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.

    (iii)Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.

    ECONOMICS

    We can judge economic impacts of high trust societies that practice near total prohibition on criminal, unethical and immoral actions. And we can compare those to low trust societies that suppress fewer unethical and immoral actions.

    CLOSING

    So under what reasoning, would it be logical to support the Non Aggression Principle under Intersubjectively verifiable property (NAP/IVP) as the basis for the law, which explicitly licenses unethical and immoral action and prohibits retribution for it?

    The NAP/IVP has been a detriment to liberty wherever advocates argue that it is a sufficient means of determining moral and legal rules of cooperation. Because it’s not.

    And we cannot pursue an alternative to the existing high trust society without providing people with an alternative that is morally SUPERIOR to the state. And the NAP/IVP fails that test.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-13 09:01:00 UTC

  • Dr. Woods has previously talked about a fuller definition of morality, this is j

    Dr. Woods has previously talked about a fuller definition of morality, this is just a status update that he posted today. Thought you might be interested.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-12 17:24:00 UTC

  • Question: "What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?"

    QUESTION

    “Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

    ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

    10246714_10152433158177264_527829354130622658_n
    10341659_10152433157872264_6629092066022808336_n
    10339771_10152433157142264_4987189427452978583_n
    10320479_10152433156752264_6790035435885808311_n
    10308325_10152433156247264_1969030948940830919_n
    10269468_10152374134427264_3416725570490600838_n

  • Question: “What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?”

    QUESTION

    “Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

    ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

    10246714_10152433158177264_527829354130622658_n
    10341659_10152433157872264_6629092066022808336_n
    10339771_10152433157142264_4987189427452978583_n
    10320479_10152433156752264_6790035435885808311_n
    10308325_10152433156247264_1969030948940830919_n
    10269468_10152374134427264_3416725570490600838_n

  • Question: "What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?"

    QUESTION

    “Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

    ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

    10246714_10152433158177264_527829354130622658_n
    10341659_10152433157872264_6629092066022808336_n
    10339771_10152433157142264_4987189427452978583_n
    10320479_10152433156752264_6790035435885808311_n
    10308325_10152433156247264_1969030948940830919_n
    10269468_10152374134427264_3416725570490600838_n

  • Question: “What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?”

    QUESTION

    “Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

    ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

    10246714_10152433158177264_527829354130622658_n
    10341659_10152433157872264_6629092066022808336_n
    10339771_10152433157142264_4987189427452978583_n
    10320479_10152433156752264_6790035435885808311_n
    10308325_10152433156247264_1969030948940830919_n
    10269468_10152374134427264_3416725570490600838_n

  • CONTRA KINSELLA ON AGGRESSION (I might as well just beat this horse until it’s r

    CONTRA KINSELLA ON AGGRESSION

    (I might as well just beat this horse until it’s really, really, dead.)

    Aggression that causes violence is determined empirically. The definition of Property that people treat as aggressed against is determined empirically. You don’t get to make stuff up. We are supposed to be the smart people you know?

    [kinsella]—“Libertarianism says that only aggression may be countered with force, that aggression is the only way to violate rights so that a forceful response is justified. Other rightful behavior, even if it is immoral or “bad,” is rightful so long as it is not aggression”— [kinsella]

    Yes, rothbardian libertarianism says that immoral and unethical actions are permissible and that you are forbidden from retaliating against people in court, and that you can be taken to court if you retaliate against immoral and unethical actions.

    Yes, rothbardian libertarianism legally authorizes immoral and unethical conduct. Yes, rothbardian libertarians prohibits retaliation for immoral and unethical conduct. Yes rothbardian libertarianism provides incentives to engage in immoral and unethical conduct. Because immoral and unethical actions allow profiting from unproductive professions that are parasitic to the polity. So yes, rothbardian ethics reflect the ethics of the low trust societies of the world. And in all low trust societies, the state is necessary as a suppressor of violence. That is why all low trust societies have strong central states: to suppress violence created by immoral and unethical actions that are non-productive, and which have no peaceful means of resolution other than violence.

    High trust societies force all profiting into the market where it is mutually beneficial. High trust societies force ALL competition into the market. They force all actions into PRODUCTIVE actions.

    It is ONLY high trust societies that have produced liberty. That is why only the formerly aristocratic nations possess liberty. Because through outbreeding and violence they forced all conflict into the market for goods and services, by prohibiting both criminal, unethical and immoral actions.

    Why have no low trust societies that employ the absence of moral and ethical standards ever formed?

    <sarcasm>

    OF COURSE I’M RIGHT.

    I know. You will get there. Or you will go to your grave whispering “I believe in NAP, I believe in NAP, I Believe in NAP” like any other good cult member.

    Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it. Abandon rothbardiansim as the failed program that it is: a pathetic attempt to pretend that cosmopolitanism was somehow a competitor to aristocratic egalitarianism.

    TIme for big boy shoes.

    You can do it if you try.

    <sarcasm/>

    PROPERTY IS DEFINED BY EMPIRICAL NOT RATIONAL MEANS

    If we define property as people ACT in high trust societies define property then yes it is a trespass. That is what I can’t seem to get across to you.

    Low trust = scarce property rights.

    High trust = lots of property rights.

    People flock TO high trust societies and AWAY from low trust societies.

    High trust = high velocity of trade and low demand for the state.

    Low trust = low velocity of trade and high demand for the state.

    It’s just the evidence. Nothing will change it. No matter how many canticles for rothbard you kneel for. No matter how much hand wringing that you muster.

    Jan lester was almost right. I”m right. This is how it is. Just time to deal with it.

    A voluntary polity is only POSSIBLE under suppression of immoral and unethical behavior via the common law, because people will not abandon or tolerate unethical behavior.

    2 mins · Like

    <sarcasam>

    So. Um. Like usual. I’m right. Yeah. Sorry. It must be painful.

    I kinda wish someone else had this job. You know? But it seems like it’s my civic duty to flush Rothbardian ethics into the toilet of phlogiston theories.

    <sarcasam/>

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 16:26:00 UTC