Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Are There Any Absolute Unrestricted Rights?

    RIGHT
    A right is a universal, contractual obligation, reciprocally granted to others by voluntary consent to the agreement of all parties.

    NATURAL RIGHT
    A natural right is a NECESSARY right that we must have in order to form a cooperative division of labor – largely by avoiding violence, fraud, and theft.  The only natural right is property and all other rights derive from that one. Because the only possible rights you can reciprocally grant regardless of circumstances are those that do not require material resources from you:

    1) property rights (safety and freedom of your body, your children, your spouse and your things),

    2) Charity under temporary duress (mutual insurance to the extend of your capacity) 

    3) kindness without material cost (manners that signal safety and that you will respect both 1, and 2.) 

    Since these require no resources from you other than those at your disposal in a temporary emergency, then these are the only rights that all people regardless of condition can grant to others, and they are the only necessary rights in a division of knowledge and labor.

    HUMAN RIGHTS
    A Human RIght as we use the term, a statement of moral ambition.  They are aspirations, because very few things can be both necessary and reciprocally granted.  We call these aspirations rights in an effort to pursuade all governments to implement these aspiration with the force of law, thereby making the aspirations into contractual rights for all people within a polity. 

    The universal declaration of human rights consists almost entirely of derivations of property rights.   Where they do not, they suggest that we must work together to raise people out of poverty (but we cannot stop them from breeding – which is what would achieve it.)

    SUMMARY
    There is a very great difference between what is possible to possess as rights that are guaranteed by others, and those that we desire to have guaranteed by others. If it requires others act, then that is very difficult. If it requires others refrain from acting, that is somewhat easier. In current western governments we ask people to refrain from consumption by taxing them so that others may consume. So far this is the only possible way we have found to solve the problem of inequality of ability and circumstance in solving material disparities, even if immaterial disparities (no fraud theft or violence) are possible without material cost.


    PART II – ANSWERING ALL QUESTIONS ON RIGHTS
    (Added in response to the question: “Yes or No?”

    The problem is the wording of the question. It is either dishonest, misleading or erroneous.  But it is so common that it is worth answering:

    “Are there” is a play on words – a deception.  Are there where? Where are they? if they exist, where are they? If you cannot find them, then how do they exist? How do they come into being? If you can ACT to create  them, then you can make them exist by your actions. If many people act the same way, for some reason, and they require others to act the same way or they will ignore, ostracize or punish them, then that action is called a ‘norm’.

    So, if you say that some rights are required for us to cooperate, or at least, avoid violence, then if we want to cooperate we must act to create those rights. And by our actions, create a habit, that is a norm.

    One of the ways to create a habit is force (law). But most laws are the contractual codification of norms, in order to justify, and clarify, and create equal punishments for, violation of those norms.

    All rights are contract rights.  That contract can be temporary and conditional mutual consent. It can be habit within the group. It can be norm within society. It can be codified with the force of law.

    That some set of normative contract rights are NECESSARY for human life, in order to make cooperation POSSIBLE, is true.  Without some portfolio of property rights it is not possible to develop a division of knowledge and labor. It is not even possible for people to live together in tribes or families.

    That some OTHER set of normative contract rights is ADDITIONALLY necessary if we want to achieve other things in society, we need only develop the means of communicating and enforcing them.

    So, again, the original question is an erroneous play on words. A contract right cannot exist without someone else’s participation in an exchange of rights.  And normative contract rights require most people grant them and that they somehow punish offenders.  And legal rights require that most people have hired specialists (politicians and judges) to specialize in enforcing their legal rights.

    As such, there are  normative contractual rights that are necessary for human life in a polity EVEN IF there is no force of law.  These rights are commonly called NATURAL RIGHTS. Living in the natural world requires that we have them.

    Beyond necessary (natural) contract rights, there are PREFERRED normative contract rights that become possible ONLY because a market society is generating enough excess production through the division of knowledge labor and capital, that it becomes possible to MAINTAIN the norm of natural rights, while granting, conditionally, assuming the resources exist, those PREFERRED contractual rights.  In this case, these PREFERRED rights are not necessarily granted by individuals directly, but through the corporation we call the government, and its members – the bureaucracy. Thus creating a third party, albiet an organizational party, to the contract.

    Pareto efficiency is the idea that you can take some amount of taxes from group A and distribute those funds either directly (good) or via services (bad), to group B, without causing the producers of taxes in group A to stop working, or to slow their working, thereby making the act of taxation counter productive.  And, when, above, I say, that we can gant additional, not necessary, but preferred, contract rights to people, if we can, we are limited in their willingness to maintain the norm of NATURAL contract rights.

    Human (contract) Rights, in the sense that they have been written as a document called the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights,  include both NECESSARY and PREFERRED contract rights.  The additional rights that are preferred, are preferred because conditions must exist to make them possible, and those conditions are greater than any individual can grant to any other individual. Therefore human rights are a political, governmental, and legal contract right.

    The only necessary rights are property rights: Life, body, action, time, and property. Which means avoiding theft and violence.

    The necessary rights for the high trust society also appear to include (a) prohibition against fraud (fraud by misrepresentation), (b) requirement for fully informed symmetry of information in any exchange (fraud by omission) (c) warranty as a defense against fraud and asymmetry, (d) requirement of action to earn profit, (e) prohibition against free-riding, privatization (corruption), profit by impediment.  The net of these rules is that all exchanges are voluntary and that all competition takes place only in the market for goods and services.

    I believe that this answers all questions on the cause and difference between rights as contract rights, (necessary) natural rights,  and (preferred) human rights, and how they can be used as temporary (truce), normative (culture), and legal (political), and economic (positive) contractual rights.

    I could edit this a bit. But it is very close to the final word on rights as we understand them.

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-absolute-unrestricted-rights

  • Competition Is The Only Sanctioned Involuntary Transfer

    The ethics of competition. From another piece I’ve been writing. “[C]ompetition” itself, as we use the term, is the normative sanction of external involuntary transfer by an artificial, counter-intuitive, set of rules we call the market, consisting of voluntary transfer of goods and services, by fully informed consensual exchange, and insured as fully informed and consensual by warranty, at the cost of opportunity and investment to other producers of similar goods, in an effort to coerce producers to innovate in their use of resources, to produce goods for all at lower price, or higher quality, in an effort to produce goods and services at the lowest cost and highest quality for all consumers participating in that set of normative rules that comprise that market, and which we in turn call ‘a society’.

  • Competition Is The Only Sanctioned Involuntary Transfer

    The ethics of competition. From another piece I’ve been writing. “[C]ompetition” itself, as we use the term, is the normative sanction of external involuntary transfer by an artificial, counter-intuitive, set of rules we call the market, consisting of voluntary transfer of goods and services, by fully informed consensual exchange, and insured as fully informed and consensual by warranty, at the cost of opportunity and investment to other producers of similar goods, in an effort to coerce producers to innovate in their use of resources, to produce goods for all at lower price, or higher quality, in an effort to produce goods and services at the lowest cost and highest quality for all consumers participating in that set of normative rules that comprise that market, and which we in turn call ‘a society’.

  • Voluntary Transfer Is The Only Testable Ethical Principle

    THE ONLY TEST OF ETHICAL STATEMENTS [T]he only test of any ethical statement is whether all transfers caused by any act, are voluntary transfers – including involuntary transfers of goods, actions and opportunity, and including both direct involuntary transfers by externality, asymmetry of knowledge, fraud, theft or violence (in that order), and including reverse involuntary transfers caused by impediment, free-riding, rent seeking, or privatization (in that order). There is no other test of any ethical statement. There isn’t. Period. – Curt

  • PROPERTARIANISM (FOR WIKI) Propertarianism is an ethical discipline within liber

    PROPERTARIANISM (FOR WIKI)

    Propertarianism is an ethical discipline within libertarian philosophy that is used to advocate and justify anarchic, private, and contractual models of government as replacements for monopolistic bureaucracies organized as states.

    It is used more loosely to categorize all libertarian philosophy that gives ethical precedence to the voluntary transfer of property. The term propertarian refers both to practitioners of these ethical systems, and their arguments. Those opposed to private property may be referred to as non-propertarian or anti-propertarian.

    The term “propertarian” was used originally by critics, to refer to the nearly exclusive reliance upon property rights and private property demonstrated by anarcho-capitalist libertarians in their ethical and political arguments, in order to distinguish them from the classical liberal disposition toward liberty in the American constitutional tradition.

    In recent years the term has been used within the libertarian movement as a self-identifying label by those libertarians who rely on propertarian ethical arguments, but try to define practical political institutions in order to separate themselves from sentimental libertarians who rely on classical liberalism’s moral, allegorical, and historical arguments, as well as from members of the ideological anarcho-capitalist movement.

    The propertarian ideologies can vary from those based upon the Propertarian canon consisting of Misesian Praxeology, Rothbardian Ethics, and Hoppian Private Government, to Ayn Rand’s Objectivism, to a variety of minor thinkers.

    Libertarian philosophy, like Marxist philosophy that it was created to compete with, is a complex dogma dependent upon economic and philosophically analytical arguments that assert that voluntary transfer of private property is the only means of testing ethical arguments.

    When libertarians apply this ethical technique to political philosophy, they express it as the principle that all human rights can be reduced to property rights. And further, that the only rights it is logically possible to possess are property rights. This principle rests in turn on the proposition that respecting property is the only right that people can equally grant to one another, since property rights only require that people refrain from doing something. And while people cannot all contribute actions equally because of their differences, they all can all refrain from acting regardless of their differences.

    This line of argument is often difficult to master, and so many of the people with libertarian bias, simply resort to treating private property as sanctified, which allows them to rely upon more intuitive, emotionally loaded, and less complex moral arguments. The rise of “internet libertarianism” may reflect this simplification.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-21 16:46:00 UTC

  • ARE THERE OBJECTIVELY MORAL STATEMENTS? (FROM ELSEWHERE) “There is no such thing

    ARE THERE OBJECTIVELY MORAL STATEMENTS?

    (FROM ELSEWHERE)

    “There is no such thing as objective morality only preferences and demonstrated preferences.”

    I’m not sure that’s true.

    In every society, the portfolio of norms consisting of maners (signals of fitness for voluntary transfer), ethics and morals (prohibitions on involuntary transfer), vary considerably. But all of them are signals of fitness, signals of contribution to a commons, and prohibitions on involuntary transfer.

    Some of these suites of property rights produce superior economic outcomes, and some inferior. That’s true. But they aren’t preferences. Norms are not preferences they are artifacts of the process of evolutionary cooperation according to prejudices (pre-judgements).

    Given that human beings universally eschew involuntary transfer, in every possible culture and circumstance, and will act twice as hard to punish it as they will for their own interest, its clear that it’s not a purely subjective phenomenon.

    And in fact it is a necessary phenomenon which genetics must eventually enforce. So while the arrangement of property rights and obligations in any set of norms may vary, the fact that humans observe norms out of prohibition on involuntary transfer is entirely objective.

    So, moral actions are only a preference in those cases where normative codes, like laws, are general proscriptions, and where for specific circumstances, one’s actions do not create an involuntary transfer.

    Moral codes may correctly or incorrectly constituted at any given moment (because they are intergenerational habits and must be constantly re-tested by each generation). But as long as they are prohibitions on involuntary transfers, then they are in fact, objective.

    If members of a group observe a set of norms, and by observing those norms, forgo opportunities for gratification or self interest, then they have in fact paid for those norms. If others do not pay for those norms, and constrain themselves to signaling, then that’s not an involuntary transfer.if however, others choose to sieze opportunities created by the normative sacrifice of others, then that’s theft, plain and simple.

    This is a quick treatment of one of mankind’s most challenging topics, but hopefully it will at least give you a few ideas.

    – Curt

    BTW: ALSO

    a) an action is a demonstrated preference.

    b) a preference is a demonstrated bias

    c) a bias may or may not be subject to cognition

    d) a habit is not subject to cognition, thats’ the value of them. They’re cheap.

    e) a normative habit is rarely understood, but almost universally practiced. Which is the reason we even have this conversation in the first place.

    f) a metaphysical bias is not subject to cognition, it’s almost never understood by anyone in any culture.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-20 15:49:00 UTC

  • THE ONLY TEST OF ETHICAL STATEMENTS The only test of any ethical statement is wh

    THE ONLY TEST OF ETHICAL STATEMENTS

    The only test of any ethical statement is whether all transfers caused by any act, are voluntary transfers – including involuntary transfers of goods, actions and opportunity, and including both direct involuntary transfers by externality, asymmetry of knowledge, fraud, theft or violence (in that order), and including reverse involuntary transfers caused by impediment, free-riding, rent seeking, or privatization (in that order). There is no other test of any ethical statement. There isn’t. Period.

    – Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-20 06:44:00 UTC

  • YOU WANT A LIBERTARIAN GEM FOR TODAY? The ethics of competition. From another pi

    YOU WANT A LIBERTARIAN GEM FOR TODAY?

    The ethics of competition. From another piece I’ve been writing.

    “Competition” itself, as we use the term, is the normative sanction of external involuntary transfer by an artificial, counter-intuitive, set of rules we call the market, consisting of voluntary transfer of goods and services, by fully informed consensual exchange, and insured as fully informed and consensual by warranty, at the cost of opportunity and investment to other producers of similar goods, in an effort to coerce producers to innovate in their use of resources, to produce goods for all at lower price, or higher quality, in an effort to produce goods and services at the lowest cost and highest quality for all consumers participating in that set of normative rules that comprise that market, and which we in turn call ‘a society’.

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2013-03-20 06:35:00 UTC

  • SYMMETRY WARRANTY EXTERNALITY Bring libertarian ethics out of Rothbard’s ghetto

    SYMMETRY

    WARRANTY

    EXTERNALITY

    Bring libertarian ethics out of Rothbard’s ghetto and back to the aristocracy whence it came.

    Voluntary exchange isn’t enough. Its ghetto liberty. Aristocracy requires symmetry warranty, and prohibition on externality.

    Without these three ethical properties, voluntary exchange alone is a license to commit fraud.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-15 19:39:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARDIAN GHETTO ETHICS : THE WALL AND THE OCEAN We libertarians must realize

    ROTHBARDIAN GHETTO ETHICS : THE WALL AND THE OCEAN

    We libertarians must realize the numerous logical errors in the ideological arguments that we use to support our ethics, if we are to include enough of the classical liberals with their aristocratic egalitarian ethics into our movement that we may represent anything more than an irrelevant minority.

    The most common error in libertarian thought is the ghetto ethics of Rothbard. Rothbard could not solve the problem of institutions. So he invented contrivances (and weak ones) to give the appearance of legitimacy to his ethical system. Hoppe succeeded where Rothbard failed. But Rothbard’s arguments persist.

    a) Rothbard’s Ghetto Ethics work only because where there is a ghetto within an existing political system, and no means by which members of the ghetto can replace the exterior political order. It’s all well and good to advocate ghetto ethics in the ghetto. It’s not good, or even rational, to suggest that those ethics could persist without the political exterior to the ghetto. The ghetto is anarchic. Sure. But it’s anarchic because the exterior power will not let a formal monopoly of property rights develop in the ghetto, and the anarch of the ghetto is perceived as a form of punishment for its inhabitants.

    b) Rothbard’s Crusoe Ethics are an example of ghetto ethics. Crusoe ethics sound “all sweet and libertarian” – until you realize that the ocean that surrounds the island provides the violence that separates the island from other humans: instead of the ghetto wall, we have the ocean deeps.

    The only rational model for political systems, that isn’t bent on such a logically faulty contrivance, is quite the opposite: that we are all standing on a continent shared with many other tribes, where each tribe uses slightly different measures of communal and private property. And you, alone, in your tribe, figure out that if you can institute private property, that your tribe will out-compete every other tribe. The question is, how do you create the institution of private property?

    That answer is quite telling: you buy it in a voluntary exchange. That is the only answer that is consistent with the non aggression principle. If you cannot buy it, then you must use violence to implement it. And you must, of certainty, use violence to protect it once you’ve instituted it.

    c) For human beings, instinctively, all property is communal, and privatization is the source of scarcity. It turns out that instinct is wrong, because it prevents the division of knowledge and labor. But we still ‘feel’ that instinct. And for the lower classes, it’s to their advantage to express, and act upon those feelings.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-30 13:14:00 UTC