“I WILL COOPERATE WITH YOU BUT I WILL NOT SERVE YOU”
We can take care of people by cooperating with them, or by serving them. Cooperation is mutually beneficial. Service is purely extractive. Oppression and extraction are exactly the same thing.
Redistribution against one’s will is simply oppression.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 12:52:00 UTC
ON THE HIERARCHY OF ETHICAL MODELS AND ARGUMENTS.
HIERARCHY OF ETHICAL SYSTEMS
1) Virtue Ethics (imitation)
2) Rule Ethics (deontological ethics)
3) Outcome Ethics (teleological ethics)
All of us that we describe as functioning humans can imitate the virtuous. As we mature we can understand the value of normative rules. As we gain wisdom and knowledge we can grasp the different outcomes that are produced by nuances. But more importantly, ethics are the list of rules by which we are forgiven for our errors, and lauded for our successes. We will not be chastised as a child for imitating virtue even if we err. We will not be chastised as an adult for following ethical rules, even if we err. We will not be chastised in our late maturity for following teleological ethics even if we err.
HIERARCHY OF ETHICAL ARGUMENTS
1) Sentimental
2) Moral
3) Rational
4) Scientific
5) Economic
6) Ratio-Scientific (including economics)
WE HUMANS EXIST IN VARIOUS AGES, with various knowledge, with various cognitive abilities. We must all cooperate given those differences. We must give the young and inexperienced what they can use, and the wizened and aged what they can use. And we must work together with our youth and age to cooperate for mutually beneficial ends.
FOR ANY POLITICAL MOVEMENT TO SUCCEED it must produce the entire suite of arguments. Because humans can only grasp some maximum level of argument given their abilities and knowledge at any given point. If you wait until all members can argue ratio-scientifically then you will never achieve your political goals. If you argue sentimentally and morally you can never defeat your opponents.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 05:00:00 UTC
WHY PROPERTARIAN REASONING IS THE ANSWER TO MORAL ARGUMENT.
“I work entirely by arguing with incentives. And I unload them as much as possible. We may not agree on the experience produced by any action, but the transfers produced by any action exist independently of how we react to them. And incentives are nothing more than values attached to transfers.”
In other words ALL EMOTIONAL AND MORAL STATEMENTS AND EXPERIENCES can be reduced to statements of the transfer of property, and our differences merely different expectations over the distribution of property rights between the private and the common.
**Propertarianism is what Praxeology should have been if it was complete.**
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 11:36:00 UTC
(SILLY)
Ours is, “Nemo me impune lacessit.” – No one provokes me with impunity.
Great family motto. Sort of, “Don’t do unto me, what you would not have done unto you twice.” Very… martial.
Don’t let anyone fool you. Revenge tastes sweet. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 13:55:00 UTC
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7581WHY GAY MARRIAGE IS ‘JUST’
In response to:
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7581
(The argument in the post was based upon a definition that I feel is arbitrary.)
RESPONSE:
Of course the definitional argument is flawed as stated.
One performs the following analyses, not an arbitrary definition.
1) what is the history of the institution – why did it arise, and what caused it to evolve?
2) what properties does the institution of marriage have that are unique to the institution?
3) of those properties, which are necessary and which are either optional or preferential?
4) What are the incentives of the individuals who wish to be married?
The purpose of marriage is to prevent violence over access to mates. Most violence in the world (statistically speaking) is mate, or mating related.
When property rights were developed by indo europeans, the control of reproduction moved from the matrilineal line (exchange for sex) to the paternal line (exchange for access to resources.).
When property became necessary under agrarianism, in effect, the marriage contract became a corporation for the control of physical assets and inheritance, not just for access to reproduction (sex).
Under agrarianism and property the responsibility for the economic support and care for children became a family matter not a tribal matter. (something women are still trying to reverse.)
Marriage represented both wealth and legitimacy, and evolved to become a status symbol as well as solve the problem of access to sex. Most cultures permit polygamy, however, in all cultures, very few men were, or are, wealthy enough to afford more than one wife. Monogamy solves the problem of the danger to every culture and civilization of single men – the source of all revolutions.
Under Manorialism, marriage evolved into more of a status symbol, because one could not only obtain access to reproduction, but could also gain access to land, and a household for farming. The family became both a reproductive and an economic unit.
Legal institutions developed to resolve conflicts over property in the event of death – wills etc.
When divorce became an option, the state intervened as the monopoly arbiter of conflict because there were disputes over the distribution of property during divorce as well as death.
When the state became the provider of services, those services were provided to the ‘corporation’ we call a ‘marriage’ which is a union of assets for the purpose of self sustenance, and reproduction.
It is unpleasant, but the relationship between property, marriage, mating is and reproduction is eternal. It is inescapable. Morality in EVERY culture is constructed by the relationship between the structure of the reproductive unit and the structure of the economic unit. While monogamous marriage is unnatural to man, almost all cultures, under agrarianism, adopted monogamous moral codes because it was such an economic and reproductive advantage to do so.
We are leaving that era of agrarian monogamy behind and returning to serial monogamy which is the natural (as we understand it) behavior of mankind when given longer life spans.
The reason homosexuals want access to the marital corporation is:
a) Legitimacy and status to compensate for lower status of homosexuals in society.
b) The ability to form a marital corporation for the pooling of assets.
c) The ability to use the pooling of assets to place a greater burden on the dissolution of the relationship, and a greater reward for retaining it.
d) The ability to obtain an open power of attorney on behalf of one another that comes with the marital corporation.
That we express the EMOTIONAL RESULTS of doing these things says nothing about what it is that we do and why.
The reason we rejected Homosexuality in the past is that it is innately distasteful – although the disgust reaction is higher in conservatives than progressives – much higher. The other is that we had wrongly assumed that it was a voluntary choice, and therefore homosexuals were hedonistically corrupting youth. Now that we understand that homosexuality is a combination of genetic and in-utero conditions that largely runs in families, and is essentially a ‘natural birth defect’ that causes no genetic harm to the body politic, then there remains no reason to eschew homosexuals other than some people’s innate distaste for visible displays of homosexual affection. And that is no reason to deny people property rights – access to the marital corporation.
Given that the reason for marriage is the prevention of violence, the economic efficiency of marriage, the economic necessity of marriage for child rearing without borderline poverty, the status symbols associated with marriage, the career benefits that come from marriage, the value of having a partner with power of attorney to protect your interests, and the state’s use of marriage as a vehicle for redistribution, it is somewhat illogical to force people into economically disadvantageous circumstances by denying them access to legal corporations for the pooling of interest and assets.
Now as a bit of humor, I suspect that when homosexuals decide to divorce in large numbers, there will no doubt come a day when they ask for special dispensation in the distribution of assets because of their homosexuality. But that will be a natural consequence of self interest. 🙂
I am fairly sure the reason that the movement succeeded was the active suppression of the rather excessive public behavior of some members of the community. As such both sides have achieved their objectives.
As far as I know, (and this is what I do) there is no better argument than this one -albeit for this blog I have used more brevity than is desirable.
Affections.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev.
Source date (UTC): 2013-10-02 11:29:00 UTC
I dont want to force a libertarian society on you but i will happily do so if you force something else upon me.
There is no virtue is pacifism, tolerance or submission. Violence is the highest virtue and the virtue from which all prosperity must originate.
There is no freedom without arms
There is no freedom at a discount.
Freedom is a form of rule.
And rule requires rulers.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-27 03:56:00 UTC
IF I AM CORRECT, THEN ETHICAL INTUITIONISM IS CORRECT
But they authors just didn’t have Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe to help them. (I did.)
What Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe didn’t have, was the past twenty years of scientific research to rely upon.
And the diverse set of ethical intuitions are not diverse at all.
He he he he… It’s awesome.
“All rights are reducible to property rights.” True. “All moral and ethical intuitions are reducible to property rights” is true also. The first is a legal statement. The second is a biological one.
Libertarians figure it out. Not all of it. But they did it.
I just put the cherry on the topping.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-14 15:43:00 UTC
http://alternativeright.com/blog/2013/9/13/codreanu-and-the-warrior-ethosLess analytically stated than I would with propertarianism, but the sentiment and narrative is correct. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-14 09:06:00 UTC
http://www.propertarianism.com/defining-propertarianism/THE NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE IS NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT
(Re-Posted from elsewhere for archival purposes.)
THE NAP IS AN EPISTEMIC TEST
The NAP is an EPISTEMOLOGICAL TEST. It lets us know what actions are ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, constructive or destructive of a peaceful social order.
The NAP states only that you do not INITIATE violence -aggression – against others or their property. It does not mean that we do not DEFEND ourselves or property if we or our property is subject to involuntary transfer or damage.
INSUFFICIENCY
We do not argue that the NAP is a SUFFICIENT informal institution for a social order. And it does not address formal institutions at all, only limits them. But it is SUFFICIENT test of ethics and morality for political statements in ANY social order. It is sufficient test of ethics and morality necessary for the development of a division of knowledge and labor. And the prosperity that results from a division of knowledge and labor is a universal demonstrated preference of all polities.
PROPERTY AS A SPECTRUM
The question that the NAP does not answer, is the definition of property and it’s distribution between the individual and the commons. That is because libertarian ethics does not allow for informal commons, only explicitly stated shareholder agreements as the vehicle for commons, and private property as the only form of property morally extant.
So the NAP does not expressly state that only private property exists and can exist, in a moral social order, but it is implied, and all libertarians simply assume it’s obvious (but it’s not.)
COMPACT WITH BROAD EXPLANATORY POWER
The NAP is an exceptionally good theory because it is COMPACT, has universal explanatory power, is testable and falsifiable both logically and empirically.
THE DEFINITION OF PROPERTY
Now, just so that I can help better intellectually arm fellow libertarians, there is a definition of property: “That which people act as if is their property.” We talk about PRIVATE property. And we advocate the reduction of all rights to PRIVATE property rights.
I’ve enumerated it here under ‘Scope of Property Rights’: http://www.propertarianism.com/defining-propertarianism/
THE ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS
So it’s not that we lack a definition of property it’s that the allocation of property between the individual and the commons varies with the family structure that the individual comes from, and the structure of production he comes from, and the moral intuitions that he or she has, which appear to be genetic, and largely correlate gender.
THE DEFINITION OF LIBERTARIAN
As for liberty, I think that the definition of libertarian is well established and has finally been empirically established by data from Jonathan Haidt: libertarian is a preference to grant freedom from coercion higher moral status than the other five moral instincts. The left treats harm-care highest, and almost exclusively, and the right treats all six moral values equally.
That is what libertarians share in common. We simply use different arguments and different institutional solutions to advocate for our desired moral bias.
ARTICULATING OUR IDEAS
So neither of these statements helps us a great deal in arguing in FAVOR of libertarianism over some other clam. But they help us in articulating our ideas clearly.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-12 05:16:00 UTC
LIBERTARIAN MISSION
1) CORRECTION
To correct libertarian morality by completing it with propertarian morality necessary and sufficient to preserve a high trust society.
2) RECONSTRUCTION
To reconstruct libertarianism relying entirely on ratio – scientific arguments.
3) REDIRECTION
To focus libertarian argument on postmodernism rather than socialism, now that we have sufficient evidence to do so.
4) ENFRANCHISEMENT
To provide a rational, scientific language of sufficient scope and depth to unite conservatives and libertarians using propertarian reasoning to explain libertarian formal institutions and conservative (aristocratic) informal institutions (norms), as mutually dependent sets of institutions.
5) JUSTIFICATION
To restore violence as the first, necessary, and sufficient requirement for creation and persistence of the institution and of property, and the freedom and liberty that result from it.
6) RESULT
To provide a means for a minority of those of us who prefer property rights, freedom to act and liberty from constraint to obtain and persist all, and to justify that means as morally necessary, obligatory, and just.
The bourgeoise are free riders: thieves. Aristocracy is earned. It is not a right. It is demanded. It is taken. And it is taken by force if needed.
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-08 11:39:00 UTC