While aristocratic egalitarian liberty is among the greatest inventions in human history, I see rothbardianism as a failed amateurish pseudo philosophical ideology, rejected by all but a meaningless minority, disproven by even the least talented of philosophers, contrary to all evidence in evolutionary biology, experimental psychology, anthropology and history, and economically irrational on praxeological grounds alone. And any chance we have of obtaining liberty whatsoever requires that we start with what we have that is supportable: that all rights are reducible to property rights, that the struggle for prosperity is the universal responsibility to suppress parasitism in every possible form, thereby forcing all human cooperation into the market for productive voluntary exchange. – and in doing so reconstruct liberty on its historical aristocratic grounds, such that it is not amateurish, contrary to the evidence, and irrational.

Propertarianism
Rothbard got it backwards. We don’t start with property rights as an assumption – a given. We start in a state of nature, with the need to cooperate, while preventing pervasive free riding.

IF PEOPLE ARE IN FACT, PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL ACTORS, ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS ARE SELF CONTRADICTORY, AND NON-RATIONAL — EXCEPT AS A MEANS TO JUSTIFY PARASITISM.

Only in the justification of parasitism are they rational. There is nothing of ‘market virtue’ about parasitism. Ether the NAP is an inadequate test of ethical action, or rothbardian private property is insufficient in scope. But it is not praxeologically arguable that it is rational to trade high transaction costs for statism. It’s not rational. Under no terms. That is. Unless your objective is to justify parasitism.

Rothbard got it backwards. We don’t start with property rights as an assumption – a given. We start in a state of nature, with the need to cooperate, while preventing pervasive free riding.

Crusoe’s island is an obscurant argument. We do not start the development of ethics on an island where the ‘government’ is provided by the sea.

Instead, we start in a tribe of consanguineous relations all of whom engage in free riding – and we must use violence, shame or remuneration to stop them from free riding so that we can accumulate capital.

Property is what’s left as you increasingly suppress various forms of involuntary extraction. Property is not the cause. It is the consequence.

Liberty is on life support. Rothbard gave it cancer. And I’m out to cure it.

 

CRITICISM IS LIMITED TO ETHICS AND CLAIMS THAT PRAXEOLOGY IS A SCIENCE RATHER THAN A LOGIC.
I criticize the NAP and Rothbardian ethics because they are insufficient in scope for the rational voluntary formation of a polity (of other than sociopaths). Rothbardian ethics are parasitic. High trust ethics are productive. And no polity has EVER chosen parasitic ethics. Gypsies, Jews, and to a lesser degree eastern europeans and mediterraneans as well as Arabs and some nomads practice parasitic ethics outside the group, but not within the group. No group can persist (cooperate) under in-group parasitism.

My solution is to define property as people define it by their actions, not as it is defined by intersubjective verifiability (hoppe’s definition).

THE NECESSITY OF THE COMMON LAW AND A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION OF IN-GROUP PROPERTY RIGHTS.
And the reason this definition of property matters, is that all libertarian institutional solutions are predicated on the assumption that a constitution defining property and requiring the common law, is sufficient ‘government’ that no ‘government’ capable of making laws need exist.

Without the common law libertarianism fails to be ‘rational and calculable’ since without a common definition of property, disputes over property rights are unsolvable by rational means.

Now I also argue that in addition to the common law, and a definition of property as people demonstrate property by their actions, no group can compete economically against other groups unless it can produce commons. And that the production of commons requires prevention of free riding, socialization of losses and privatization of the commons and gains from the commons.

HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS ARE THE ANSWER TO MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY
But that is not a criticism of Hoppeian libertarian solutions to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy by the use of competing private insurance companies rather than that same insurance provided by the monopoly bureaucracy that we call the state.

The problems with the state are (a) law-making (command issuance) given that laws cannot be made, only discovered, and (b) the self interest of all members of a bureaucracy and the unavoidable predation that results from bureaucracy. (c) Technically speaking the errors of democracy and majority rule are properties of one form of government, and not government per se.

LIBERTARIANISM AS FREEDOM FROM CONSPIRATORIAL IMMORALITY: FREE RIDING BY THE BUREAUCRACY.
I‘ve been criticizing ‘stupid-tarians’, and ‘immoral-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’ and ‘libertines’ of late, masquerading as libertarians. If you follow a rule based ethic (the NAP) rather than the outcome of human actions in producing liberty, you are really quite stupid, honestly, because it is quite clear that (a) the NAP is a failed test if we limit property contestable in court to ‘private property’, because it’s non-rational for people to choose an immoral and unethical polity and as such they will not eliminate demand for the state under NAP. And (b) because it’s pretty obvious to all but autistic and immoral people that the NAP permits – legally – immoral and unethical behavior: thefts via indirection, deception and externality. (c) that only outcomes, not observance of rules determines the success or failure of any set of rules. And Rothbardianism is a failed, ridiculed, illogical, immoral, ethical system.

So, libertarian then means ‘working for liberty that is logically and empirically achievable. If it means something else to you, then you’re just a stupid-tarian, immoral-tarian, or libertine, and not a libertarian: one who places liberty above all other moral values.

If libertarian means stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly, and libertine, then we must rescue liberty and the terminology from the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine.

Liberty, as a brand, as a meme, as a term, and as a political objective, is not open for capture by the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine.

That would be immoral.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev

 

Libertarians do not advocate a deregulated market. They advocate:
a) universal legal standing for claimants in all courts of law.
b) requirement that companies be insured.
c) elimination of liability protections for executives.

The idea is that insurance companies will better regulate goods and services than will the government, at a lower cost, and that if everyone has legal standing the cost of abusing consumers especially if there is no shield provided by the corporate veil, is so high that organizations will not engage in those behaviors.

It is pretty hard to argue against the libertarian position. It is very easy to argue against a libertarian straw man (monopoly deregulation vs private regulation). And yes, there are a lot of idiots in libertarianism just like there are a lot of idiots in every other ideology.

But the fact of the matter is that libertarians have provided the only innovations to political economy in the past century.

 

(the most important bit of philosophy that you will read today)

As intelligence increases morality increases, and concern about morality decreases. The reasons are still being debated, but the general theory is that (a) smarter people can identify dishonesty more easily, and (b) smarter people can rely upon wit and cunning as a competitive advantage so that they have less trouble competing honestly. To which I would like to add (c) that the higher you are in the food chain the more abstract property you are dealing with and therefore the harder it is to steal it.

Libertarians tend to be very bright. But libertarians also test as abnormally insensitive to moral questions. The connection between the two facts is pretty obvious. We libertarians are less concerned with immorality because it’s easy for us to defend against. I don’t take the position that we’re less moral. Only that immorality is less of a challenge for us SO WE DISCOUNT THE TRANSACTION COSTS of immoral activity, whereas everyone else does NOT discount those transaction costs.

This explains why libertarians are more easily fooled by Rothbardian ethics than conservatives (aristocratic egalitarians) and progressives (socialists). The moral economy is less valuable to us than to conservatives and progressives. We discount the cost of immoral and unethical behavior.

But if we want to build a polity – the fact is: we’re wrong. Those transaction costs increase as intelligence and general knowledge decrease. And so it’s just not rational for a body of people to adopt Rothbardian ethics. They aren’t moral ENOUGH for suppression of immoral and unethical behavior, and the high transaction costs imposed upon people who must deal with pervasive immoral and unethical behavior.

Private property is what remains when a polity suppresses all free riding: violence, theft, fraud, cheating, externalizing, privatizing, conspiracy, corruption and extortion. And people will not grant one another private property rights and reduce demand for the state unless suppression of free riding (immoral and unethical behavior) is present FIRST.

Curt Doolittle

 

DEFINITIONS
ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange
MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange.

CASES
NON/MORAL / AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence)

UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical)

ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical)

IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral).

MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).

 

If Lou wants to claim ‘libertarian’ as the name for a political movement that advocates lying, deception, and general scumbaggery, then why should we morally allow the term liberty and libertarian to be associated with lying, deception, and immoral scumbaggery?

Sorry. The origin of liberty is aristocracy, not parasitic low trust, lying, cheating, dishonest scumbaggery.

Liberty isn’t your fire-hydrant Lou.

You had your chance. you picked an immoral ethical code and failed.

You picked a pseudoscience and failed.

It’s time for the next generation to try to do better.

Sorry man, but Rothbardianism is a dead cat bounce.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/2014/03/lew-rockwell/what-libertarianism-is-and-isnt/

 

(You can see from this chart how Rothbardianism is immoral. In fact, it’s a a specialization in immorality: the involuntary transfer of property against the will of others.)


1484716_10152152905747264_1495672552_n
Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 12.04.21 PM
Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 12.04.44 PM
 

1) Ghetto ethics only require that the exchange is voluntary.
2) They do not require that the exchange is productive, only that parties are satisfied. (blackmail for example is not productive.)
3) They do not require fully informed exchange backed by warranty. (they allow lying and cheating and information holding)
4) They do not prohibit profiting from harm, or causing harm (Usury for example.)
5) They do not require that the exchange is free of externality.

Parasitic ethics of rothbard require only the first, but the high trust ethics of Protestant require all five criteria. High trust ethics (and human in-group moral instinct) require that we eschew free riding (parasitism) and the only means of doing so, is to require exchanges be internally and externally productive.

Under rothbardian ethics it is possible to profit without contribution to production, and to exist entirely parasitically. ie: his ethics are parasitic.

 

DEFINITION: “PSEUDOSCIENCE”
pseu·do·sci·ence ˌso͞odōˈsīəns
noun: pseudoscience; plural noun: pseudosciences; noun: pseudo-science; plural noun: pseudo-sciences
1. is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to the scientific method.

I use the following criteria to determine whether something is a pseudoscience:
1) One must claim it is scientific
2) Yet the method does not adhere to the scientific method.
That is the minimum criteria.

The following criteria serve to further falsify claims:
3) (optional) Method does not produce results it claims to.
4) (optional) Is not or cannot be stated in operational language.
5) (optional) Is not or cannot be constrained by testable correspondence with reality.

By these criteria Praxeology fails as a science, as all axiomatic systems must fail as sciences.

However, it is possible to state that we can study the science of cooperation (economics) and as such produce theories that for deductive purposes we may treat axiomatically, although the results of that deduction must still be tested by correspondence with reality, and falsified.

Emergent properties must be tested empirically, and experiential properties can be tested experientially, if articulated as human actions.

For these reasons human cooperation can be termed a science, and we can construct a formal grammar of cooperation.

Something akin to praxeology can be constructed as a formal logic of cooperation, but it will, as all axiomatic systems must be, constrained by correspondence with reality.

 

Facts:

1) Praxeology is a pseudoscience
2) Rothbardian ethics are parasitic
3) Argumentation is descriptive not causal.
4) Private property alone is insufficient to eliminate demand for the state
5) Rights cannot exist without context of contract.
6) Property is what remains when all free riding is forcibly suppressed, meaning that it’s not a binary proposition open to intersubjective verifiability.
7) The Absolute Nuclear Family is necessary for suppression of demand for the state, and therefore liberty is the desire of a permanent minority who practice the ANF.

Libertarianism was yet another pseudoscientific failure. Ethical Realism, Propertarianism, and Aristocratic Egalitarianism correct the errors of immoral libertarianism.

 

(important)

The signature property (the ‘tell’) of continental argument is conflation, in which the purpose of argument is an attempt to construct authority. (German and French)

Signature property (the ‘tell’) of cosmopolitan thought is ‘the prestige’ (distraction), in which the purpose of an argument is to distract from the central, more obvious one by means of cunning. (Jewish).

The signature property (the ‘tell’) of anglo enlightenment thought is the assumption of universalism.

These three ‘tells’ are all means of deception and error in order to justify the metaphysical assumption about what is ‘good’.

 
Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.