WHY ARE YOU ARGUING USING AXIOMATIC RATIONALISM INSTEAD OF SCIENTIFIC THEORY AND LAW? (clue: it’s not a good reason)
—as I can tell [doolittle’s] main argument is that it is a logical contradiction to say we own ourselves because an entity cannot be self owning.
This is an error because he never establishes the qualities that make an entity capable of owning – I.E. that it is a moral being. By ignoring the prerequisites for ownership his whole argument implodes in on itself, for example he claims that libertarians don’t believe in positive obligations to children (they do) and that children achieve self ownership at some point in growing up (they always own themselves). In creating this straw man he is guilty of extreme fallacy, but even his initial point is false. The only entity that can own itself is a moral being, because only moral beings are capable of ownership. This is not a logical contradiction because moral beings are categorically different from the rest of the universe. This is justified by the same arguments by which one is involved in a logical contradiction by arguing against them.—-
uh huh.
That’s not the argument.The argument is much more profound: “Why are you not arguing scientifically, and instead are arguing rationally?” Do you do so to justify a falsehood? Or because you simply do not possess the knowledge to argue scientifically(critically), and only are aware of the technology of rationalism (justification)?
Just as supernatural ethics were used for centuries reasonably, rationally, and legally, using justificationary logic, Deontological (declarative) ethics have now been used for centuries reasonably, rationally, and legally. But Neither supernatural ethics, or deontological ethics are structured nor argued scientifically.
Just as rule ethics (deontological ethics) can be used to provide legal license for immoral actions due to asymmetry of knowledge, outcome ethics (teleological ethics) can be used to prevent immoral actions that rule ethics would permit. In other words, both outcome ethics and scientific criticism provide greater explanatory power, and greater suppression of the parasitism that produces conflict and inhibits cooperation.
Deontological (declared) ethics are easily used for deceit. And that rothbardian ethics consist of deontological rules specifically to avoid the evolutionary enforcement of judicial law. Meanwhile physical law, natural law, judicial law, evolve constantly, in order to prevent escape of evolutionary expansion of judicial law.
That’s “The Argument”: That rothbardian ethics, like traditional law he was imitating, were designed to justify a scientifically, objectively, immoral reproductive strategy. And worse, rothbardian ethics, like authoritarian religious ethics that preceded it, make use of incomplete statements (principles) in order to invoke suggestion, in the same way that Lao Tzu’s ‘riddles’ invoke suggestion.
In other words, you can get away with saying many things, if you rely upon suggestion to complete incomplete statements. However this allows the altruist to take risk and the predator to prey on one’s altruism.
Suggestion using riddles and incomplete sentences is an excellent vehicle for non-rational, transmission of ideas. Religion, libertarianism, Confucianism, to some degree buddhism, all rely upon it.
Science does not. The common law does not. Rome was superior to Athens in that roman law was scientific, and greek law was rational. we inherited roman law and its compatibility with anglo saxon law. we restored greek science. But we maintained greek rationalism, and the church’s adoption of it. As a means of excuse making – when we do not know the truth, or it is uncomfortable, or undesirable.
(more…)
(…more)
REVERSAL
That said, let’s take a look at how ownership is constructed.
Humans are expensive and need to acquire. They defend what they acquire. And they seek to acquire a wide range of acquisitions.
Demonstrated Property (property candidates) are determined by what humans retaliate for the imposition of costs upon. Evidence suggests that the scope of demonstrated property includes anything that one has born any form of cost to transform (or not) from one state to another.
While human evolved the facility to empathize with intent, and therefore cooperate. Cooperation is usually more rewarding than conflict – but not always. Humans act in our rational interests given the information at our disposal and the technology of reasoning at our disposal and that we have mastered.
Ownership (identity) is created as the property of a contract -usually normative – insured by third parties – usually formally (Institutionally).
Property rights(decidability), likewise, are created by contract – usually normative – insured by third parties – usually formally.
The distribution of property and property rights varies widely, is created by contract, usually normative, and insured by third parties, usually formally.
Property rights are determined by what the insurer is willing to enforce, usually determined normatively. Always evolutionarily.
The individualization of property evolved in parallel to the inheritance practices of the family, and the atomization of the division of labor.
Self ownership is an unscientific (untrue) expression that like the incomplete sentence “NAP” instead of “NAP/IVP” is an unscientific (untrue) expression. The rothbardian libertarian corpus consists of a set of assertions (not observations) evolved if not designed, to JUSTIFY a particular group evolutionary strategy – not to scientifically (Truthfully) describe necessary conditions for producing a condition of liberty. (Hayek did that by the way. It’s called the prevention of conflict and the resolution of disputes by contract, under rule of law (universal applicability), under universal standing (universal right of suit), evolving by
In other words, the common law of contract is scientific: ever evolving. It consists of observations(free associations), hypotheses(untested guesses), theories(tested guesses) and Laws(durable models). This body of knowledge arises from the resolution of disputes. Disputes arise from human nature. Humans enter conflict because at least one party attempts to impose a loss against another party.
The scope of what we will agree to insure varies from culture to culture. Conversely, the scope of what we will not agree to insure varies from culture to culture. And moreover, what groups agree to internally insure, versus what they agree to externally insure varies from culture to culture, tribe to tribe, family to family – depending largely upon their reproductive strategy.
There is NOTHING Individual in the construction of liberty. Yet everything in the construction of liberty is dependent upon the defense of the individual’s investments. Why? Because in the west we needed warriors in order to accumulate commons, yet lacked the wealth to supply them. Because we lacked a central government to collect sufficient money. Because our means of production was individual farms, not alluvial plains.
Liberty is not constructed by argument or avoidance of constructing a commons. It is constructed by our reciprocal insurance of one another – a commons.
Impose no cost upon that which another has born a cost to accumulate, whether his life,his family, his mates, his offspring, his kin, his several property, his myths, rituals, traditions, norms, institutions, and as an insurer, correct all imposition of costs by all others against all of the same. For he will retaliate against you if you do.
This is science,
this is common law,
this is rule of law,
this is universal standing,
this is natural Law.
The purpose of rothbardian ethics is to escape investment in the commons – which is a logical and existential contradiction since property rights and a condition of liberty must and can only exist when produced as a commons – and furthermore to explicitly license deceit which would
NAP / Self ownership / “Economics is deducible” / The Action Axiom and other ‘principles’ are restatements of medieval religious law, themselves statements of a group evolutionary strategy, and are stated as half truths – excuses – for the purpose of facilitating suggestion, suggestions that appeal to those who are suggestible, who are suggestible altruistically, are suggestible to commons-avoidance, and these statements are not scientific, nor ‘true’, nor natural laws, nor can they produce a condition of liberty.
There are many kinds of useful idiots. Rothbardians are the good kind. But they are still suggestible, and easily fooled by half truths, riddles, puzzles, and suggestions that do not require one to gather vast amounts of scientific knowledge, but instead, can rely upon introspection – all of which does nothing but reinforce the suggestion.
That’s the argument.
Although I tried to go too deep into the differences in information content between methods of argument structure last night, I thought it might help. It did not.
This post requires less knowledge of the reader.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-02-09 03:52:00 UTC