Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • Deceptions

    TRUE --------------------------- FALSE------
Operational Language............ Moral language
Compensation.....................Shame, Moral Duty or Claim
Voluntary Exchange...............Involuntary Transfer

  • Deceptions

    TRUE --------------------------- FALSE------
Operational Language............ Moral language
Compensation.....................Shame, Moral Duty or Claim
Voluntary Exchange...............Involuntary Transfer

  • Aristocratic Egalitarian Vs Rothbardian Ethics

      (revised and expanded) It’s pretty hard to beat non-aggression as an epistemic test. It’s the only intersubjectively verifiable test. We can’t really know anything else for certain. We can very easily see violence and theft. But, does that inability to know much else for certain, stop us from developing ETHICAL and MORAL rules? LETS LOOK AT ETHICS: The spectrum of Manners, Ethics and Morals. 1) Manners are immediately visible. Just like aggression. 2) Ethics are not immediately visible and intersubjectively verifiable. Ethical rules are principles that compensate for the asymmetry of information of both parties. Probability of adherence to ethical rules that compensate for asymmetry of information, is signaled with manners and a contractual property of ALL exchanges. 3) Morals are not anywhere visible, but are a means of preventing privatization of the commons – involuntary transfer from others. Some are very obvious (having a child our of wedlock and then asking the community to support you), and some are less obvious (promoting a bad idea by arts, writing, speech, or performance: (most advertising). So, the failure to establish means of regulating ethics and morals, other than the NAP, is simply a license for unethical and moral action in any and all exchanges. Rothbard’s argument is that the market is sufficient to constrain ethical and moral behavior. But the EVIDENCE is that this isn’t true. It’s VIOLENCE that constrains it. And violence is constrained by the number of people who can be allied to either support unethical and immoral actions, or to support ethical and moral actions. The rothbardian answer to this problem is to resort to courts. But if NAP alone is the ethical and moral rule in exchanges, then, as Rothbard argues in For a New Liberty, there is no means of court resolution of fraud and immorality: theft by other than visible means. In other words, rothbard gives us the low trust society, and aristocracy, with a higher constraint than NAP, gives us the high trust society. Rothbard’s ethics are ‘what you can get away with in an exchange, called voluntary, but asymmetrical in knowledge.’ Aristocracy gave us ‘what you can get in a voluntary exchange under warranty that knowledge is symmetric’. This is why rothbardian ethics are intolerable to western christians. Demonstrably, at least our version of human beings, find that insufficient. Under aristocratic ethics, ALL involuntary transfer is forbidden EXCEPT that which takes place in the market for productive goods and services, fully under warrantee of symmetry of knowledge. And the further difference is, that fraud by asymmetry (omission) is not just a theft from by one party from another, but a theft from ALL PEOPLE who constantly forgo opportunities for fraud by omission – and in doing so create the HIGH TRUST SOCIETY. In other words, theft or violence (aggression) is an attack on all the institution of property. Property which has been paid for by constantly paying the high cost of respecting others’ monopoly of control. A control over that which they settled, made or obtained in exchange. An attack on any property then, is an attack on, and theft from all SHAREHOLDERS IN THE INSTITUTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. As such all men who respect property rights, as shareholders in paying for that institution, are being stolen from, and as such have standing to enforce, by violence, any offense of property rights by any person, at any time. In most human societies, the “OTHERS” are biological extensions of the family. In yet others, adherents to the religion. But under aristocracy the ‘in-group’ members are those who reciprocally grant and defend property rights regardless of family membership, and the “OTHERS” are those who do NOT reciprocally grant property rights, and defend them. THAT IS THE MEANING OF ARISTOCRACY: a shareholder in the corporation whose assets are private property rights, and the obligation and right to prosecute and demand restitution on the part of either himself OR THE CORPORATION of ALL members of the contract of private property. As such, the contributors to property rights in fact, are owners of the economically productive society, its norms and institutions, and those those that do not equally take responsibility for property rights are the ‘others’: non-family members. Under aristocratic egalitarianism, the high trust WITHIN the genetic FAMILY is extended to the CORPORATE family of fellow shareholders. Thus the family is contractual rather than genetic. that is how the ‘high trust society’ unique to northern europeans was made possible. The title “SIR” meant you had earned the right to carry weapons and enforce property rights. The “right to carry arms’ is identical to ‘the right to private property’. These two are ideas are inseparable. The source of property rights is the organized use of violence to create them. The source of property rights is not some, mystical grant of god or nature, or some necessary natural right – since private property is rare if not unique in the world, it cannot be ‘natural’. In fact, private property is UNNATURAL, which is why it is so IMPORTANT. Without it we cannot form the incentives nor perform the calculation necessary to crate a vast division of knowledge an labor in real time. Aristocracy is the system of social order where by we enter a voluntary contract to use violence to institute, and maintain, private property rights. And we struggle to enfranchise as many people in this UNNATURAL system as possible, so that we have the strength of numbers. This system, private property, is so effective, and has such an affect on status, and the ability to reproduce, that everyone wants to join the societies that have it. The first problem is, (a) THAT THEY WANT IT FOR FREE. And (b) once property rights are a norm, they feel it’s free, because they don’t have to EARN IT any longer with visible payments, only invisible payment (constraints). So the contract isn’t visible and is abused and taken for granted. As such to maintain property rights requires that we perform some ACT of maturity and COGNIZANCE in order to obtain them. Cities in the west were not organically created markets, but deliberate islands of PROPERTY RIGHTS crated by the organized application of violence by the nobility. The island of property rights was crafted out of a land populated by free riders who actively SUPPRESSED the desire of any individual to concentrate capital behind his ideas or wants rather than that of the free riders and rent seekers around him. Which is why Rothbard had to resort to CRUSOE’S ISLAND. On that island, the ocean forms the walls of the ghetto, beyond which is the aristocratic society. Crusoe’s island is one of the reasons libertarianism has failed to gain adoption. The western ethic is to “Make all men aristocrats”. That is what ‘egalitarian aristocracy’ means. That the fools in the enlightenment though men DESIRED to be aristocrats was a catastrophic error. But the fact that MANY do, is enough to form a high trust society. As such, NAP, is “peasant” or “ghetto”, or “gypsy trader” morality. The morality of people who cannot ally to hold land, and develop fixed capital, heavy production systems (metals) and formal institutions of dispute resolution. It not liberty, but the return to partial barbarism. Rothbard gave us the ethics of the traveling merchant, the ghetto, and organized crime. Aristocracy gave us the ethics of the extended family warriors, farmers and shopkeepers – the high trust society. The only people to created liberty as a formal and informal institution were aristocrats. Just how it is.

  • Aristocratic Egalitarian Vs Rothbardian Ethics

      (revised and expanded) It’s pretty hard to beat non-aggression as an epistemic test. It’s the only intersubjectively verifiable test. We can’t really know anything else for certain. We can very easily see violence and theft. But, does that inability to know much else for certain, stop us from developing ETHICAL and MORAL rules? LETS LOOK AT ETHICS: The spectrum of Manners, Ethics and Morals. 1) Manners are immediately visible. Just like aggression. 2) Ethics are not immediately visible and intersubjectively verifiable. Ethical rules are principles that compensate for the asymmetry of information of both parties. Probability of adherence to ethical rules that compensate for asymmetry of information, is signaled with manners and a contractual property of ALL exchanges. 3) Morals are not anywhere visible, but are a means of preventing privatization of the commons – involuntary transfer from others. Some are very obvious (having a child our of wedlock and then asking the community to support you), and some are less obvious (promoting a bad idea by arts, writing, speech, or performance: (most advertising). So, the failure to establish means of regulating ethics and morals, other than the NAP, is simply a license for unethical and moral action in any and all exchanges. Rothbard’s argument is that the market is sufficient to constrain ethical and moral behavior. But the EVIDENCE is that this isn’t true. It’s VIOLENCE that constrains it. And violence is constrained by the number of people who can be allied to either support unethical and immoral actions, or to support ethical and moral actions. The rothbardian answer to this problem is to resort to courts. But if NAP alone is the ethical and moral rule in exchanges, then, as Rothbard argues in For a New Liberty, there is no means of court resolution of fraud and immorality: theft by other than visible means. In other words, rothbard gives us the low trust society, and aristocracy, with a higher constraint than NAP, gives us the high trust society. Rothbard’s ethics are ‘what you can get away with in an exchange, called voluntary, but asymmetrical in knowledge.’ Aristocracy gave us ‘what you can get in a voluntary exchange under warranty that knowledge is symmetric’. This is why rothbardian ethics are intolerable to western christians. Demonstrably, at least our version of human beings, find that insufficient. Under aristocratic ethics, ALL involuntary transfer is forbidden EXCEPT that which takes place in the market for productive goods and services, fully under warrantee of symmetry of knowledge. And the further difference is, that fraud by asymmetry (omission) is not just a theft from by one party from another, but a theft from ALL PEOPLE who constantly forgo opportunities for fraud by omission – and in doing so create the HIGH TRUST SOCIETY. In other words, theft or violence (aggression) is an attack on all the institution of property. Property which has been paid for by constantly paying the high cost of respecting others’ monopoly of control. A control over that which they settled, made or obtained in exchange. An attack on any property then, is an attack on, and theft from all SHAREHOLDERS IN THE INSTITUTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. As such all men who respect property rights, as shareholders in paying for that institution, are being stolen from, and as such have standing to enforce, by violence, any offense of property rights by any person, at any time. In most human societies, the “OTHERS” are biological extensions of the family. In yet others, adherents to the religion. But under aristocracy the ‘in-group’ members are those who reciprocally grant and defend property rights regardless of family membership, and the “OTHERS” are those who do NOT reciprocally grant property rights, and defend them. THAT IS THE MEANING OF ARISTOCRACY: a shareholder in the corporation whose assets are private property rights, and the obligation and right to prosecute and demand restitution on the part of either himself OR THE CORPORATION of ALL members of the contract of private property. As such, the contributors to property rights in fact, are owners of the economically productive society, its norms and institutions, and those those that do not equally take responsibility for property rights are the ‘others’: non-family members. Under aristocratic egalitarianism, the high trust WITHIN the genetic FAMILY is extended to the CORPORATE family of fellow shareholders. Thus the family is contractual rather than genetic. that is how the ‘high trust society’ unique to northern europeans was made possible. The title “SIR” meant you had earned the right to carry weapons and enforce property rights. The “right to carry arms’ is identical to ‘the right to private property’. These two are ideas are inseparable. The source of property rights is the organized use of violence to create them. The source of property rights is not some, mystical grant of god or nature, or some necessary natural right – since private property is rare if not unique in the world, it cannot be ‘natural’. In fact, private property is UNNATURAL, which is why it is so IMPORTANT. Without it we cannot form the incentives nor perform the calculation necessary to crate a vast division of knowledge an labor in real time. Aristocracy is the system of social order where by we enter a voluntary contract to use violence to institute, and maintain, private property rights. And we struggle to enfranchise as many people in this UNNATURAL system as possible, so that we have the strength of numbers. This system, private property, is so effective, and has such an affect on status, and the ability to reproduce, that everyone wants to join the societies that have it. The first problem is, (a) THAT THEY WANT IT FOR FREE. And (b) once property rights are a norm, they feel it’s free, because they don’t have to EARN IT any longer with visible payments, only invisible payment (constraints). So the contract isn’t visible and is abused and taken for granted. As such to maintain property rights requires that we perform some ACT of maturity and COGNIZANCE in order to obtain them. Cities in the west were not organically created markets, but deliberate islands of PROPERTY RIGHTS crated by the organized application of violence by the nobility. The island of property rights was crafted out of a land populated by free riders who actively SUPPRESSED the desire of any individual to concentrate capital behind his ideas or wants rather than that of the free riders and rent seekers around him. Which is why Rothbard had to resort to CRUSOE’S ISLAND. On that island, the ocean forms the walls of the ghetto, beyond which is the aristocratic society. Crusoe’s island is one of the reasons libertarianism has failed to gain adoption. The western ethic is to “Make all men aristocrats”. That is what ‘egalitarian aristocracy’ means. That the fools in the enlightenment though men DESIRED to be aristocrats was a catastrophic error. But the fact that MANY do, is enough to form a high trust society. As such, NAP, is “peasant” or “ghetto”, or “gypsy trader” morality. The morality of people who cannot ally to hold land, and develop fixed capital, heavy production systems (metals) and formal institutions of dispute resolution. It not liberty, but the return to partial barbarism. Rothbard gave us the ethics of the traveling merchant, the ghetto, and organized crime. Aristocracy gave us the ethics of the extended family warriors, farmers and shopkeepers – the high trust society. The only people to created liberty as a formal and informal institution were aristocrats. Just how it is.

  • The Problem Of Ratio-moral Versus Ratio-scientific Arguments

    (interesting) “Ratio-Scientific vs Ratio-Moral Argument” Historically, Political speech has been structured morally: I) as an expression of positive or negative reaction (IRRATIONAL SELF) II) as an appeal or pleading (RATIONAL BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS) III) as a polemic or criticism (RATIONAL AND ARATIONAL TO AN AUDIENCE) To express one’s feelings or reactions without the structure of reason, is not a debate. It’s just sentimental expression. It’s an opinion poll but not an argument. It’s an expressed reaction without a request for opinion. But it’s not an argument. To enter into debate, one forgoes one’s right of violence. Theoretically in pursuit of the truth, for mutual benefit. That is the purpose of a debate. (This fact, that gets to the problem of why argumentation is correct for deductive purposes but incorrect for causal purposes). To publish one’s arguments in a political context, one conducts oratory, not debate. Oratory falls into the following structural categories: (Forms of Oratory: or ‘publication’)

    • a) RHETORIC / “Rhetorical argument”: A type of argument, spoken or written, between an orator or writer and an audience, that uses reason (logos), appeals to emotion (pathos), and appeals to community norms (ethos), to persuade the listeners to take the side of the argument presented.
    • b) APOLOGIA / “Apologetic Argument” / “Apologist” : A type of argument whereby an individual defends a religious, political, or cultural position or dogma through the systematic use of reason. An “Apologist” refers to authors, writers, editors or academic journals, and public leaders who commonly defend what are usually minority positions that are the subject of consistent or popular scrutiny.
    • c) POLEMIC : A type of speech intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view about a matter of significant public importance in Religion, Philosophy, Politics or Science.
    • d) PHILIPPIC : A type of speech that is emotive, fiery, damning, or a tirade, for the purpose of condemning, discrediting, disempowering, and ostracizing a particular political actor.
    • e) JEREMIAD : A long literary work, usually in prose, but sometimes in poetry, in which the author bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and which contains a prophecy of society’s imminent downfall.

    (For more, see my guide on DISCOURSE: IRRATIONAL (expression) vs RATIONAL (debate) vs ORATORY (publication) at http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/#II ) LIBERTARIANISM IS STRUCTURED RHETORICALLY, and libertarian ethics are structured as an APOLOGIA by Rothbard. Ratio-scientific argument from analytical philosophy, is either true or false, but it is not an appeal for consent. That is non-logical. Contract is consensual, but truth is independent of consent. RATIO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT IS ABSENT RESPECT FOR CONVENTION. The purpose of the scientific method is to CORRECT our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and narrative (causal relations), habits, norms, traditions, myths and metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. Otherwise the discipline of science would not be necessary. The purpose of MORAL speech in the form of RHETORIC and APOLOGIA, is to APPEAL to norms embedded in memory, and narrative, in order to obtain consent. The purpose of RATIO SCIENTIFIC argument is to describe a set of causal relations that produce an outcome. In other words: a formula or recipe. The formula or recipe either works or it doesn’t. But it’s not a matter of consent, or preference. It’s just true or false. One can say that the formula isn’t logically sufficient or solid. But one cannot prefer or object to the conclusion. One doesn’t write these things as appeal, one writes these as positives statements that are open to TESTING, not as appeals that are written to obtain CONSENT. Whether one agrees or not with them must be a matter of the argument, not wither one likes or dislikes it. Formulae and Recipes produce what they do. One can like the product or not, but the formula or recipe works, then it just does. I would like it very much if it was possible to convince people to adopt libertarian ethics and a libertarian morality. As it is currently structured it is not rational to think so. I am not trying to persuade people to adopt libertarianism. I am trying to demonstrate that if one desires LIBERTY, then one must ACT in such fashion that human beings will produce it. That is not a moral question. It is not a rhetorical question. It is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Either people WILL or WILL NOT, when subject to incentives A, produce behavior B. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS AND MORALS The argument that demonstrably, we ALL act in our reproductive interests, within the structure of production, structure of reproduction, and structure of property rights which we call ‘norms’, and that ALL our discourse is little more than JUSTIFICATIONARY attempts at resisting against, cooperating with, or thieving from one another within the boundaries of those productive, reproductive, and normative constraints. That is an argument that is extremely difficult to prove. Nothing else is actually logical. If we want liberty then, we must create institutional incentives for liberty. Asking people to ‘believe’ in libertarianism or, marxism is equally ridiculous.

  • The Problem Of Ratio-moral Versus Ratio-scientific Arguments

    (interesting) “Ratio-Scientific vs Ratio-Moral Argument” Historically, Political speech has been structured morally: I) as an expression of positive or negative reaction (IRRATIONAL SELF) II) as an appeal or pleading (RATIONAL BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS) III) as a polemic or criticism (RATIONAL AND ARATIONAL TO AN AUDIENCE) To express one’s feelings or reactions without the structure of reason, is not a debate. It’s just sentimental expression. It’s an opinion poll but not an argument. It’s an expressed reaction without a request for opinion. But it’s not an argument. To enter into debate, one forgoes one’s right of violence. Theoretically in pursuit of the truth, for mutual benefit. That is the purpose of a debate. (This fact, that gets to the problem of why argumentation is correct for deductive purposes but incorrect for causal purposes). To publish one’s arguments in a political context, one conducts oratory, not debate. Oratory falls into the following structural categories: (Forms of Oratory: or ‘publication’)

    • a) RHETORIC / “Rhetorical argument”: A type of argument, spoken or written, between an orator or writer and an audience, that uses reason (logos), appeals to emotion (pathos), and appeals to community norms (ethos), to persuade the listeners to take the side of the argument presented.
    • b) APOLOGIA / “Apologetic Argument” / “Apologist” : A type of argument whereby an individual defends a religious, political, or cultural position or dogma through the systematic use of reason. An “Apologist” refers to authors, writers, editors or academic journals, and public leaders who commonly defend what are usually minority positions that are the subject of consistent or popular scrutiny.
    • c) POLEMIC : A type of speech intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view about a matter of significant public importance in Religion, Philosophy, Politics or Science.
    • d) PHILIPPIC : A type of speech that is emotive, fiery, damning, or a tirade, for the purpose of condemning, discrediting, disempowering, and ostracizing a particular political actor.
    • e) JEREMIAD : A long literary work, usually in prose, but sometimes in poetry, in which the author bitterly laments the state of society and its morals in a serious tone of sustained invective, and which contains a prophecy of society’s imminent downfall.

    (For more, see my guide on DISCOURSE: IRRATIONAL (expression) vs RATIONAL (debate) vs ORATORY (publication) at http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/#II ) LIBERTARIANISM IS STRUCTURED RHETORICALLY, and libertarian ethics are structured as an APOLOGIA by Rothbard. Ratio-scientific argument from analytical philosophy, is either true or false, but it is not an appeal for consent. That is non-logical. Contract is consensual, but truth is independent of consent. RATIO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT IS ABSENT RESPECT FOR CONVENTION. The purpose of the scientific method is to CORRECT our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and narrative (causal relations), habits, norms, traditions, myths and metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. Otherwise the discipline of science would not be necessary. The purpose of MORAL speech in the form of RHETORIC and APOLOGIA, is to APPEAL to norms embedded in memory, and narrative, in order to obtain consent. The purpose of RATIO SCIENTIFIC argument is to describe a set of causal relations that produce an outcome. In other words: a formula or recipe. The formula or recipe either works or it doesn’t. But it’s not a matter of consent, or preference. It’s just true or false. One can say that the formula isn’t logically sufficient or solid. But one cannot prefer or object to the conclusion. One doesn’t write these things as appeal, one writes these as positives statements that are open to TESTING, not as appeals that are written to obtain CONSENT. Whether one agrees or not with them must be a matter of the argument, not wither one likes or dislikes it. Formulae and Recipes produce what they do. One can like the product or not, but the formula or recipe works, then it just does. I would like it very much if it was possible to convince people to adopt libertarian ethics and a libertarian morality. As it is currently structured it is not rational to think so. I am not trying to persuade people to adopt libertarianism. I am trying to demonstrate that if one desires LIBERTY, then one must ACT in such fashion that human beings will produce it. That is not a moral question. It is not a rhetorical question. It is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Either people WILL or WILL NOT, when subject to incentives A, produce behavior B. THE ARGUMENT FOR THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS AND MORALS The argument that demonstrably, we ALL act in our reproductive interests, within the structure of production, structure of reproduction, and structure of property rights which we call ‘norms’, and that ALL our discourse is little more than JUSTIFICATIONARY attempts at resisting against, cooperating with, or thieving from one another within the boundaries of those productive, reproductive, and normative constraints. That is an argument that is extremely difficult to prove. Nothing else is actually logical. If we want liberty then, we must create institutional incentives for liberty. Asking people to ‘believe’ in libertarianism or, marxism is equally ridiculous.

  • IS MATH INVENTED, DISCOVERED, OR BOTH? (cross posted) “Question for you Curt – d

    IS MATH INVENTED, DISCOVERED, OR BOTH?

    (cross posted)

    “Question for you Curt – do you believe mathematics to be invented, discovered, or an element of both?” – Davin Eastley

    Invented.

    The natural world does not have this flexibility so the natural world can be expressed in mathematical terms. The natural world must of necessity be a subset of mathematical possibilities. Even mathematical possibilities are most often determined by the numerical base rather than

    For example, is Pi a number then, or the name of an operation (function)?

    All numbers are a ratio, and must be to be identical. 3=3/1 : three equals three one’s. One represents some unit – an arbitrary category, unit, or an instance. So 1 = 1/1 of some category, unit or instance. We use zero, one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine, ten as names for natural numbers, and then use the OPERATION of positional notation to produce names for the rest (with ten, eleven and twelve added for antique convenience).

    The difficulty in training humans to generalize these names and operations so that they may be used as analogies in multitudinous contexts tends to confuse ordinary minds, who then Platonize these names. But just because we can arbitrarily say that we IDENTIFY one of anything, and can from that singular act of identity, produce the full range ratios and functions of mathematics, does not mean anything more than that if we practice we can create those multitudinous ratios and functions (operations).

    Simple people are misled by the same process when anthropomorphizing divinities – which are a form of very abstract moral calculation – a sort of specialized mathematics. Educated people often ridicule this primitive form of reason. Then at the same time, in the very next breath, make the mistake of Platonizing mathematics, which is likewise to believe in ‘magic’. To say that numbers ‘exist’ or are ‘discovered’ is … intellectually embarrassing. It means that one uses a tool like an ape but fails to grasp the reason that the tool performs the function that it does.

    Math can be accurately correspondent with anything we choose to measure, as long as what we choose to measure can be expressed in constant relations. Unfortunately we have not yet conceived of a means of measuring inconstant relations. Although, I’ve written elsewhere, that this is most likely a problem of data collection and computation not one of impossibility.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-24 06:46:00 UTC

  • JOURNALIST FALLACY Drawing strong inferences from one or two data points

    http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbling/2012/06/the-journalists-fallacy.htmlTHE JOURNALIST FALLACY

    Drawing strong inferences from one or two data points.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 12:32:00 UTC

  • THE BHL’S, SENTIMENT VS REASON, AND ASKING FOR AN ARGUMENT Stephan Kinsella has

    THE BHL’S, SENTIMENT VS REASON, AND ASKING FOR AN ARGUMENT

    Stephan Kinsella has me thinking about our socially conscious friends: the BHL.

    And, again, I enthusiastically support ANY pursuit of liberty, wherever possible, by whomever possible. The more the merrier. The more positive the better.

    I think that, sure, adding ‘social compassion’ it’s an attractive means of making libertarianism palatable for the mainstream. If you can’t fight off the proletarians, then you can simply buy them off. I’ve certainly advocated the same strategy.

    Social compassion is certainly a way to destroy the myth of equality, and destroy the nuclear family, as well as the pressure to create and keep the nuclear family. So, that helps correct the erroneous assumptions of equality of interest, and that liberty is a universal desire, instead of the priority of a permanent minority.

    I mean, but, I think that the most likely outcome, without a ‘package deal’ is that we would both redistribute more money, AND get less freedom in exchange. Because the moral hazard would increase the weight of the unproductive, and the state would use that lever to increase extraction from us.

    I guess, what I’d like to see from the BHL’s is, some argument that supports their position by rational rather than sentimental means.

    Propertarianism can be used to rationally defend the BHL’s objective WITHOUT sacrificing, any way, the sanctity of individual property rights, or requiring charity. Compassion is a camel’s nose and there is no end to its infiltration of the tent of liberty.

    Propertarianism requires that you decide whether the reward for respecting property rights (and manners, ethics, morals and norms) is simply access to the market, or whether additional dividends are warranted for that investment.

    I think, intuitively, people feel that they are due more than access. And that (a) commissions are due on production and (b) dividends are due to ‘shareholders’, where shareholder-ship is obtained by, respect for property rights.

    This is a descriptive, not normative ethical explanation of what people actually think, feel, and do. It asks ‘at what point have I paid for my property rights? And what is my dividend on that ownership?

    But this strategy is incompatible with open immigration. And open immigration is incompatible with property rights – at least without full and immediate adoption of all manners, ethics, morals and norms. The most important of which, is the norm of private property, without which, the formal institutions of private property cannot exist.

    At least it is not possible to demonstrate otherwise.

    Give them some love too:

    http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-21 02:36:00 UTC

  • CARING ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM (humor)(truth) “The reason I seem to care so much ab

    CARING ABOUT LIBERTARIANISM

    (humor)(truth)

    “The reason I seem to care so much about libertarianism is because I believe a correct understanding of the science of economics puts severe limits on what government can accomplish” – Peter Boettke

    I agree. Although, the reason I care so much about libertarianism, is because the government can accomplish so much. And almost all of it turns out to be bad, or worse. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-14 18:03:00 UTC