DEFINITIONS ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange. CASES NON/MORAL / AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence) UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical) ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical) IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral). MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).
Theme: Reciprocity
-
Comparison Of Libertarian Ethical Systems
(You can see from this chart how Rothbardianism is immoral. In fact, it’s a a specialization in immorality: the involuntary transfer of property against the will of others.)
-
Comparison Of Libertarian Ethical Systems
(You can see from this chart how Rothbardianism is immoral. In fact, it’s a a specialization in immorality: the involuntary transfer of property against the will of others.)
-
Rothbard As Destroyer Of Liberty?
[S]o is liberty defined by voluntary exchange? Or is liberty defined by suppressing all in-group involuntary transfer? I’ll help you: it’s the latter. Just like the Golden and Silver Rules, these two propositions lead to vastly different conclusions and their application leads to vastly different societies. The gnostics were right about ‘Jehova’ and I’m right about ‘Rothbardianism’. You couldn’t invent a better way to destroy liberty than a pseudoscience that encouraged passionate devotion to a false theory as a distraction from a scientific answer to a true theory. “You oughtta’ think on that a bit” before you repeat one more rothbardian falsehood as a prayer for liberty. Rothbardian ethics are immoral and parasitic, and the NAP is immoral, unethical and socially destructive. If there is a hell, Jehova is laughing at you every time you quote the NAP.
-
Rothbard As Destroyer Of Liberty?
[S]o is liberty defined by voluntary exchange? Or is liberty defined by suppressing all in-group involuntary transfer? I’ll help you: it’s the latter. Just like the Golden and Silver Rules, these two propositions lead to vastly different conclusions and their application leads to vastly different societies. The gnostics were right about ‘Jehova’ and I’m right about ‘Rothbardianism’. You couldn’t invent a better way to destroy liberty than a pseudoscience that encouraged passionate devotion to a false theory as a distraction from a scientific answer to a true theory. “You oughtta’ think on that a bit” before you repeat one more rothbardian falsehood as a prayer for liberty. Rothbardian ethics are immoral and parasitic, and the NAP is immoral, unethical and socially destructive. If there is a hell, Jehova is laughing at you every time you quote the NAP.
-
Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans
[T]he intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules: 0) Private property 1) Voluntary Exchange 2) Symmetry and Warranty* 3) Prohibition on Externality* 4) Requirement for Value Added* 5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding. 6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution. Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws): 7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law) 8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.) 9) The right of exclusion (ostracization). [T]hese last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft). High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods. As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust. As Such, 1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts, 2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts 3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts. As Such, A Common Law System Can Function Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible. Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts. Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE. 1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable. 2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable 3) Measurements render relations commensurable 4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable. 5) Money renders goods and services commensurable 6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable
-
Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans
[T]he intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules: 0) Private property 1) Voluntary Exchange 2) Symmetry and Warranty* 3) Prohibition on Externality* 4) Requirement for Value Added* 5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding. 6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution. Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws): 7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law) 8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.) 9) The right of exclusion (ostracization). [T]hese last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft). High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods. As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust. As Such, 1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts, 2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts 3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts. As Such, A Common Law System Can Function Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible. Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts. Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE. 1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable. 2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable 3) Measurements render relations commensurable 4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable. 5) Money renders goods and services commensurable 6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable
-
I’M CRITICIZING ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS, NOT HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS CRITICISM IS LIMIT
I’M CRITICIZING ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS, NOT HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS
CRITICISM IS LIMITED TO ETHICS AND CLAIMS THAT PRAXEOLOGY IS A SCIENCE RATHER THAN A LOGIC.
I criticize the NAP and Rothbardian ethics because they are insufficient in scope for the rational voluntary formation of a polity (of other than sociopaths). Rothbardian ethics are parasitic. High trust ethics are productive. And no polity has EVER chosen parasitic ethics. Gypsies, Jews, and to a lesser degree eastern europeans and mediterraneans as well as Arabs and some nomads practice parasitic ethics outside the group, but not within the group. No group can persist (cooperate) under in-group parasitism.
My solution is to define property as people define it by their actions, not as it is defined by intersubjective verifiability (hoppe’s definition).
THE NECESSITY OF THE COMMON LAW AND A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION OF IN-GROUP PROPERTY RIGHTS.
And the reason this definition of property matters, is that all libertarian institutional solutions are predicated on the assumption that a constitution defining property and requiring the common law, is sufficient ‘government’ that no ‘government’ capable of making laws need exist.
Without the common law libertarianism fails to be ‘rational and calculable’ since without a common definition of property, disputes over property rights are unsolvable by rational means.
Now I also argue that in addition to the common law, and a definition of property as people demonstrate property by their actions, no group can compete economically against other groups unless it can produce commons. And that the production of commons requires prevention of free riding, socialization of losses and privatization of the commons and gains from the commons.
HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS ARE THE ANSWER TO MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY
But that is not a criticism of Hoppeian libertarian solutions to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy by the use of competing private insurance companies rather than that same insurance provided by the monopoly bureaucracy that we call the state.
The problems with the state are (a) law-making (command issuance) given that laws cannot be made, only discovered, and (b) the self interest of all members of a bureaucracy and the unavoidable predation that results from bureaucracy. (c) Technically speaking the errors of democracy and majority rule are properties of one form of government, and not government per se.
LIBERTARIANISM AS FREEDOM FROM CONSPIRATORIAL IMMORALITY: FREE RIDING BY THE BUREAUCRACY.
I’ve been criticizing ‘stupid-tarians’, and ‘immoral-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’ and ‘libertines’ of late, masquerading as libertarians. If you follow a rule based ethic (the NAP) rather than the outcome of human actions in producing liberty, you are really quite stupid, honestly, because it is quite clear that (a) the NAP is a failed test if we limit property contestable in court to ‘private property’, because it’s non-rational for people to choose an immoral and unethical polity and as such they will not eliminate demand for the state under NAP. And (b) because it’s pretty obvious to all but autistic and immoral people that the NAP permits – legally – immoral and unethical behavior: thefts via indirection, deception and externality. (c) that only outcomes, not observance of rules determines the success or failure of any set of rules. And Rothbardianism is a failed, ridiculed, illogical, immoral, ethical system.
So, libertarian then means ‘working for liberty that is logically and empirically achievable. If it means something else to you, then you’re just a stupid-tarian, immoral-tarian, or libertine, and not a libertarian: one who places liberty above all other moral values.
If libertarian means stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly, and libertine, then we must rescue liberty and the terminology from the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine.
Liberty, as a brand, as a meme, as a term, and as a political objective, is not open for capture by the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine.
That would be immoral.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-03 10:33:00 UTC
-
RULES OF ETHICAL AND MORAL EXCHANGES DEFINITION ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer
RULES OF ETHICAL AND MORAL EXCHANGES
DEFINITION
ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange
MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange.
CASES
AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence)
UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical)
ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical)
IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral).
MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-01 14:41:00 UTC
-
PROFOUND PROPERTARIAN INSIGHT Enlightenment Political and economic ethics, wheth
PROFOUND PROPERTARIAN INSIGHT
Enlightenment 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.
People 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.
Source date (UTC): 2014-03-28 12:58:00 UTC
