THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY: THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE I (we) may not be able to coerce you into accepting freedom – individual monopoly of control over property obtained by voluntary exchange production or homesteading – as a superior form of cooperation to all other forms of cooperation. But you may not coerce me (us) into abandoning freedom as our preferred, committed, required, demanded and threatened form of cooperation. THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY IS VIOLENCE The source of property is the use of violence to create, obtain, and protect it. Only those who performed militial service created private property. Only those who performed militial service obtained private property. Only those who perform militial service will keep private property. A militia is a voluntary alliance of property owners whose common interest is the preservation of private property rights. A militia is not the same as an army, any more than freedom is the same as liberty. You create freedom by using violence. You request or desire liberty from someone else. The purpose of a libertarian government is to create private property through the organized application of violence to create it. And libertarian pacifists and moralists are in fact the reason we are losing it. VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE. Violence is a virtue not a vice. If all rights are property rights. If property defines morality, then violence to create property is the first moral action upon which all other morality rests. We should encourage the mastery of violence in all men at all times, and the exercise of violence by all men at all times, in the defense of property rights, the highest form of morality that a man can display. Because by acts of violence to preserve property he pays the highest contribution to morality possible. Defense of property does not require words. It requires actions. FREEDOM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH MILITIA The only free people are, and must be, a people whose government is a militia, and whose resolution of disputes over property is decided by judges using the single rule of private property as their criteria for adjudication. A militia is synonymous with enfranchisement. No one else has paid for his or her right of property. They merely free ride on the expenses of others. Therefore, political democracy is synonymous with militial participation. No other meaning is possible. All other attributions are acts of theft by fraud. Militial participation requires no more than the personal use of violence to protect property rights. The use of the militia is to create and preserve property rights. The use of judges is to resolve conflicts without violence. The use of democratic government is not to create laws, but to create physical commons. The use of public intellectuals, is to carry on the public debate over which commons we may choose to invest in, and which not. The use of ‘religion’ and literature is to teach us these necessary and immutable laws of human cooperation so that we never forget them – and by forgetting them lose our freedom. You cannot obtain the right of private property at a discount. It is an extremely costly right to possess. It is an extremely costly right to maintain. Those who attempt to gain freedom – property – at a discount, will obtain an inferior product to those who pay for a better one. And the only currency of freedom -property – is violence. Be armed. Be willing. Be vigilant. And Act. —– Curt Doolittle Kiev, 2013 “Putting violence back into liberty one sentence at a time.”
Theme: Reciprocity
-
THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY: THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE
THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY: THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE
I (we) may not be able to coerce you into accepting freedom – individual monopoly on property – as a superior form of cooperation to all other forms of cooperation. But you man not coerce me (us) into abandoning freedom as our preferred, committed, required, demanded and threatened form of cooperation.
The source of property is the use of violence to protect it.
Only those who performed militial service created private property.
Only those who performed militial service obtained private property.
Only those who perform militial service will keep private property.
A militia is a voluntary alliance of property owners whose common interest is the preservation of private property rights. A militia is not the same as an army, any more than freedom is the same as liberty. You create freedom by using violence. You request or desire liberty from someone else.
The purpose of a libertarian government is to create private property through the organized application of violence to create it. And libertarian pacifists and moralists are in fact the reason we are losing it.
You cannot obtain the right of private property at a discount. It is an extremely costly right to possess. It is an extremely costly right to maintain.
VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE. Violence is a virtue not a vice. If all rights are property rights. If property defines morality, then violence to create property is the first moral action upon which all other morality rests.
We should encourage the mastery of violence in all men at all times, and the exercise of violence by all men at all times, in the defense of property rights, the highest form of morality that a man can display.
Because by acts of violence to preserve property he pays the highest contribution to morality possible.
Defense of property does not require words. I requires actions.
The only free people is and must be a people whose government is a militia, and whose resolution of disputes over property is decided by judges using the single rule of private property as their criteria for adjudication.
The use of the militia is to create property rights. The use of judges is to resolve conflicts without violence. The use of government is not to create laws, but to create physical commons. The use of public intellectuals, is to carry on the public debate over which commons we may choose to invest in, and which not. The use of ‘religion’ and literature is to teach us these necessary and immutable laws of human cooperation so that we never forget them – and by forgetting them lose our freedom.
Those who attempt to gain freedom – property – at a discount, will obtain an inferior product to those who pay for a better one. And the only currency of freedom -property – is violence.
—–
Curt Doolittle
Kiev, 2013
“Putting violence back into liberty one sentence at a time.”
Source date (UTC): 2013-09-07 05:34:00 UTC
-
Property Rights And Taxes As Loans
(ironic humor) The exchange of free riding, fraud, theft and violence for property rights functions as an involuntary loan of the opportunity to consume by way of free riding, fraud, theft and violence, on the unproductive. In exchange for which, at some later time, they receive the service of less toil, lower prices and greater variation, and freedom from slavery. Under democracy, the unproductive tax the income of the productive, so that the unproductive receive the same benefit as if they were productive. The problem is that the productive need the unproductive to have money to spend, in order to maintain momentum (velocity) in the economy, from which the productive benefit. So as long as the tax money of the productive is given to consumers, and not the government, and not to competing social interests, it’s a necessary and reasonable exchange of value – instead of a forced loan of free riding, fraud, theft and violence from the unproductive for the purpose of consumption, it’s a forced loan from the productive to the consumer. Now, if the productive could SAVE enough that when they got off the hamster wheel of velocity, that they could maintain their standard of living, I kind of think that this system works in a sort of madcap kind of way. I don’t like it very much. Because the hamster wheel is really risky for entrepreneurs. And I don’t want to suppress the lottery effect. that drives innovation under capitalism. But it might be possible to solve the problem of rewarding entrepreneurship differently from investment and lending. I think, if I work a little bit more at this I can explain it all in moral language that average ‘folk’ can understand. ‘Cause the language of man is morality not empiricism. The world we have made is a hysterically funny place.
-
Property Rights And Taxes As Loans
(ironic humor) The exchange of free riding, fraud, theft and violence for property rights functions as an involuntary loan of the opportunity to consume by way of free riding, fraud, theft and violence, on the unproductive. In exchange for which, at some later time, they receive the service of less toil, lower prices and greater variation, and freedom from slavery. Under democracy, the unproductive tax the income of the productive, so that the unproductive receive the same benefit as if they were productive. The problem is that the productive need the unproductive to have money to spend, in order to maintain momentum (velocity) in the economy, from which the productive benefit. So as long as the tax money of the productive is given to consumers, and not the government, and not to competing social interests, it’s a necessary and reasonable exchange of value – instead of a forced loan of free riding, fraud, theft and violence from the unproductive for the purpose of consumption, it’s a forced loan from the productive to the consumer. Now, if the productive could SAVE enough that when they got off the hamster wheel of velocity, that they could maintain their standard of living, I kind of think that this system works in a sort of madcap kind of way. I don’t like it very much. Because the hamster wheel is really risky for entrepreneurs. And I don’t want to suppress the lottery effect. that drives innovation under capitalism. But it might be possible to solve the problem of rewarding entrepreneurship differently from investment and lending. I think, if I work a little bit more at this I can explain it all in moral language that average ‘folk’ can understand. ‘Cause the language of man is morality not empiricism. The world we have made is a hysterically funny place.
-
Ethics: Morality Defined
Manners are a promise prior to a transaction (or action). Ethics are a promise internal to the transaction (or action). Morals are a promise external to and antecedent to any transaction (or action). The promise is quite simple. A promise to avoid involuntary transfer. That’s it. Ethics isn’t complicated.
-
Ethics: Morality Defined
Manners are a promise prior to a transaction (or action). Ethics are a promise internal to the transaction (or action). Morals are a promise external to and antecedent to any transaction (or action). The promise is quite simple. A promise to avoid involuntary transfer. That’s it. Ethics isn’t complicated.
-
MORALITY Manners are a promise prior to a transaction (or action). Ethics are a
MORALITY
Manners are a promise prior to a transaction (or action). Ethics are a promise internal to the transaction (or action). Morals are a promise external to and antecedent to any transaction (or action).
The promise is quite simple. A promise to avoid involuntary transfer.
That’s it. Ethics isn’t complicated.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-31 06:44:00 UTC
-
NATURALISM AND MARGINAL INDIFFERENCE AS PROPERTARIAN MORALITY In the discipline
NATURALISM AND MARGINAL INDIFFERENCE AS PROPERTARIAN MORALITY
In the discipline of law, the jury determines guilt or innocence. This is irrespective of your guilt or innocence. We can deduce your guilt or
innocence. We can justify your guilt or innocence. But without OBSERVABLE DEMONSTRATION we cannot DEMONSTRATE your guilt or innocence. It is just true in the ABSENCE of observable demonstration because we say so – because we agree.
In the discipline of math, the accepted practice, is that .999… = 1. This is irrespective of the fact that it is impossible to construct 1 from .9999999… There is no numeric operation that we can perform to do so. We can only DEDUCE it, or claim it.
We can create arguments. We can create deductions. But we cannot operationally create the number 1 from .999… by the process of addition or subtraction: which is in fact, the basis of all mathematics.
So if I can get a bunch of people to agree that all people named ‘Brian’, are hosts of demons and should be put to death, then I can have all ‘Brian’s’ put to death. Or if I can get a bunch of people to test whether Brian is telling the truth by seeing if he sinks in a lake, then, if he floats (survives) he is lying.
I think that is Brian’s argument. Which, of course, is exactly what I’ve been saying. Math can do so, because it is irrelevant. Mathematics is marginally indifferent to more important disciplines. The test of true DEDUCTION is marginal indifference to the outcome. The test of truth existence, is OPERATIONAL (causal) CONSTRUCTION.
Postmodernism is predicated on the very principle that Brian is advocating: that truth is what we agree it is, not what is independently of our agreement. Not what is OPERATIONALLY and SCIENTIFICALLY true, but what is consensually true – by language.
A theory can NEVER be true. An operation cannot be false. it just IS. Mathematical operations cannot be false. Mathematical theories (deductions) can NEVER be true.
Mathematics is responsible for the the creation of the worlds most dangerous religion since Zoroaster invented law of the gods. Math has reinvented magic. And Brian is an acolyte of that religion.
’tis how it ’tis. ’tis an inescapable box.
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-23 21:44:00 UTC
-
AND PROPERTY ARE SYNONYMS – LOVE IS AN INCENTIVE, NOT A NECESSARY REQUIREMENT –
http://blog.talkingphilosophy.com/?p=7337MARRIAGE AND PROPERTY ARE SYNONYMS – LOVE IS AN INCENTIVE, NOT A NECESSARY REQUIREMENT – ROMANTIC NOTIONS TO THE CONTRARY
The are only two things that distinguish marriage from any other arbitrary relationship for the purpose of securing affection, sex, companionship, love, care-taking, cost-reduction-of-cohabitatin, and a division of labor in child rearing.
1) PROPERTY: When you marry, you form a corporation with shared assets, and a two person board of directors, from which the state must divide assets upon the disbanding of the corporation. Prior to the institution of private property, you could just marry and un-marry by saying so in public. In fact, the western Celts practiced serial marriage this way until the 19th century, and the European jews until the middle ages. In most primitives societies, women were literally property, but in Europe the church granted women property rights back in the 1200’s. So the need to resolve property disputes increased as the complexity and amount of property increased, and the productivity of individuals, and therefore their ability to obtain and use property increased.
2) KINSHIP: We have evolved laws to avoid conflict by stating that the other shareholder has certain powers (of attorney) to act as Voluntary Kin in periods of duress, and it that takes precedence over other involuntary Kinship ties: blood relatives. In this sense when we marry we sell ourselves to the corporation as an asset.
THE STATE AS MONOPOLY
The state is the arbiter of property disputes – that’s what a state is: a territorial monopoly on the use of violence; and in particular for the use of violence in the resolution of disputes. The moment that you enter into a marriage that produces common property, you force the state into your marriage because only the state can resolve conflicts over property.
Anyone can form a corporation. A ship captain, a priest, or certain state officials. The formation’s not a state matter. It’s just an exchange like any other exchange. But the state must break it. And if the state must break it then it must of necessity develop criteria for doing so in order to apply a decision that meets the standard of consistent “law” rather than arbitrary judicial decision.
However, there is no reason that the state must be the arbiter or such disputes. There is no reason churches cannot perform divorces, in which the assets divisions have the force of law. Unfortunately this wold produce two canons of law, and leave the state responsible for resolving appeals, so it would simply result in the state centralizing decision making power again.
THE OPTION TO MAINTAIN PRIVATE PROPERTY
However, an easier solution is that if when we marry we do NOT create a corporation and place ourselves and all our assets into it, but instead, maintain each individual’s property separately, and specifically state ownership percentages on anything else that is split now or future, then the only legal issue is the power of attorney to act as one another in financial matters, and to act as primary kin in the event one is incapacitated.
HISTORY
The civic and political problem is only that our laws developed as monopolies under control of the state – and even then, largely because the church did not perform divorces and the state wished to intercede in the civil space in order to advance the interests of the feminist political movement on the one hand, and react to the reality that women were becoming active in the work force, earning income, and acquiring real property in sufficient numbers that they required legal peerage to protect them from abuse by rent-seeking males.
So there is no reason that we must have a monopoly of marriage terms. And there is only one reason that the state should be involved in dissolutions: common property. That is, property of the corporation called the marriage being distributed to various parties in the event of a disbandment of the corporation.
CRITERIA FOR THREE TYPES OF MARRIAGE
Further, there is no reason marriages cannot consist of multiple forms, regardless of who makes them.
1) Corporate Property and Power of Kin
2) Several property and Power of Kin
3) Corporate Property without power of kin
Several Property without power of kin is the normal state of human beings. So that’s the definition of not being married. But one can be in a state of marriage as long as one has either the power of kin (genetic assets) or power of common property (material assets).
ITS ALL ABOUT PROPERTY
Love and romance have nothing to do with marriage. You may get married BECAUSE of love and romance and all the other factors. But marriage is a change in control of property – including the self – by authorizing non-kin to act as Kin, and to either pool property or not.
That it is hard to see the binding power of a marriage having any meaning whatsoever without the pooling of assets is enough of a logical constraint that we can define marriage as a property institution, and nothing more.
That fact may be painful to admit to ourselves. But marriage is a contract over of property rights, with one of the assets being each other. It is, and always will be. ‘Cause nothing else makes much sense. ‘Cause nothing else enforces fidelity like the loss property.
Humbling. I know.
->Comment in response to this post at Talking Philosophy:
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-03 05:07:00 UTC
-
NEW MORAL PRINCIPLE FOR THE POST INDUSTRIAL ERA? What was the last moral princip
NEW MORAL PRINCIPLE FOR THE POST INDUSTRIAL ERA?
What was the last moral principle that humans discovered? Think about that for a bit. Because I have been. And, I think I understand the evolution of NECESSARY moral principles as well or better than anyone.
And, while I’m not positive (because I haven’t read every word ever written in this world) I think I might have discovered the first new NECESSARY moral principle of the post-agrarian era.
When I first wrote about it a few years ago, I didn’t think about it as novel. It was just a necessary constraint for suppressing fraud at scale. And I think it transitions an existing MORAL principle to an ETHICAL principle. (In the sense that Moral principles are those where your actions are entirely anonymous, and ethical actions are where your actions are not anonymous but you possess asymmetric knowledge.) So the ethical constraint enforces the moral objective.
We tend to view norms as sacrosanct. But while instinctual morality remains constant (at least within kin) descriptive morality (morality in practice) varies with the structure of the reproductive unit and the structure of the means of production. Our ‘savage’ ancestors would not practice our moral codes nor we theirs. Mostly because the ‘momentum’ of production that we call ‘scarcity-productivity’ is so much higher now that we can afford to take risks that they couldn’t.
We are’t so much morally superior by choice as we are superior by advent of technologies of cooperation and production. And those material advantages allow us to treat increasing numbers of people as kin – by raising our standard of violence in pursuit of calories. to the point now where we rarely need violence for material matters, and most violence occurs over mates or status – which in practice may be the same thing.
At this point in our development, we have forbidden all violence, theft and fraud, and we suppress it well, by forcing all competition into the market for goods and services. HOwever, our ORGANIZATIONS are terribly immoral both in private and public senses. The private are subject to competition so their immorality is just suppressed quickly, and they cannot calcify the way government does, into predatory bureaucracies and survive for long. Whereas the government can devolve in to predatory bureaucracy almost from the formation of a bureaucratic organization.
To make matters worse, we can privatize almost everything that a government does and cure most of the problem. But we cannot privatize everything, because when we say ‘privatize’ we mean tat we o pen it to competition. But in any competition there are losers, and you cannot build the commons willingly if there is a chance that any given participant will ‘lose’. And that is why, whether my libertarian friends like it or not, some form of ‘government’ will always exist: to produce commons in lieu of competition (loss).
As such, what can we do to prevent corruption in the commons? What is the one institutional, ethical principle that we could adhere to in order to prevent all the forms of theft of commons that occur in every bureaucracy?
Humans engage in violence – largely for status and mate seeking reasons. Humans engage in Theft, largely for petty entertainment, or drug use. Humans engage in fraud for many reasons, but usually as a means of income. Humans engage in fraud by omission as a matter of course. And Humans free-ride whenever and wherever possible outside of ascetic protestantism. IN fact, that is what differentiates ascetic protestantism – the prohibition on free riding.
Where there is an organization that they can seek rents, humans engage in rent seeking (‘limited monopoly’, ‘loyalty fees’, ‘charity’, privatization of gains,socialization of losses) whenever possible.
Where they are In organizations, humans engage in interpersonal corruption, rent seeking, privatization of gains, and systemic corruption.
Where they are in control of organizations they engage in systemic theft, systemic fraud, war and conquest.
Humans have an ethical portfolio with just one, one-note song we call competition in the free market. But they have a symphony of immoral options available to them. So it’s no surprise that when we give people incentives to act to steal, that they do so.
We are fascinatingly creative creatures really.
Curt Doolittle
(c a l c u l a t i o n: maintaining causal relations by prohibiting pooling and laundering.)
Source date (UTC): 2013-08-02 03:12:00 UTC