My definition of Truth under Scientific Realism, is that any notion of Truth can only exist if we say it is a) Performative, consisting of b) Correspondence and c) Coherence (internal consistency). And that all other statements are analogies to some subset of these properties.

And that d) formal theories of truth (the ‘logics’) are each subsets of Coherence, which test certain properties of any “True” and therefore Performative, Correspondent and Coherent statement.

And that e) property and involuntary transfer constitute a missing logic of cooperation, that renders all transfers open to analysis and criticism.

And that f) praxeology constitutes a missing logic of the rationality of decisions and incentives, that renders all actions open to subjective testing. But because humans are marginally indifferent in their rationality and incentives, such subjective, SYMPATHETIC testing functions as an objective test of the rationality of incentives.

And that: g) Constructive (meaning socially constructive, including Consensus theories) and Pragmatic theories of truth are failed attempts at obscurant coercion (theft) by adherents to enlightenment democratic equalitarianism, socialists, postmodernists, and totalitarian humanists. Just as the Rawlsian veil is yet another attempt at obscuring involuntary transfers, while relying on the impossibility of human judgement to make such decisions as would be required to achieve the abstract concept of ‘justice’.

As such I view truth as Performative (attestation) constrained by and consisting of {
i) Correspondent (with reality);
ii) Cohesive (internally consistent and formal);
iii) Identitarian (categories, properties and names)
iv) Propertarian (cooperative moral action);
v) Praxeological (rational action)
} properties – each subset set of properties requiring separate logics for the isolation and analysis of each subset.

Conversely, no ‘complete attest-able truth’ can be constructed in any subset without consideration of all. It may be (as in the case of any of the formal logics) that no external dependency is present (although I cannot think of one). But I am unaware of any formal logic without external dependency.

This is a non contradictory, fully explanatory theory of the criteria for truth. And so far I am unable to formalize a criticism of CR, because for all intents and purposes that I can imagine, the CR definition of truth is platonic and non existent, and impossible. Since the only truth that can exist is attestation: the constant reduction in our own errors as we try to describe the properties of the universe.

We can know what is false. That is our only certainty. But we can never know a platonic truth other than a tautology, because only tautological statements are complete. A complete statement is not open to attestation. If any statement is not tautological, and therefore incomplete, it is open to attestation. But how can we say an attestation is meaningful if it’s tautological?

We are, with the concept of truth, improving our attestations about the universe. This is what we improve. That is the purpose and function of truth. Since only by improving our attestations and constantly testing them can we improve our actions, and by our actions, continue to increasingly outwit the deterministic processes in the universe by constructing minor alterations to that universe such that we can make use of the universe as we will.

If I am to defend the claim that obscurantism must be prohibited from political speech (argument), then I cannot make this claim on irrefutable terms, without at least addressing the relationship between the logical disciplines, and the very nature of philosophy, as a moral endeavor.

No man is an island.

No argument in any sub discipline is either.

 

(draft of the correction of a priorism in economics, politics and ethics.) (important)

Exchanges are unique. Every one. Marginalism alone renders all exchanges unique – even before we consider the uneven distribution of resources and ability, and the vagaries of nature, and the shifting wants and signals of human beings.

As such, each exchange is unique, and even aggregate measures of inputs, operations and outputs in similar exchanges are dependent upon Patterns of Sustainable Specialization and Trade; which while sticky, are no guarantee of future exchanges under similar conditions. Constancy is an illusion. Businesses continuously adjust to conditions. So, no relations are constant in economics, even if in the aggregate, in short time periods, they appear so.

If no relations are constant in economics, that means that we cannot organize production on the assumption of constant relations. This criticism stands alone, even prior to either the problem of calculation without money and prices, or the problem of incentives independent of rewards.

However, we cannot organize any form of production under the assumption of constant relations without the incentives of multitudinous individuals to produce.

This is the correct criticism of the socialist method of production.

1) calculation
2) inconstancy of relations
3) impossibility of organization
4) impossibility of incentives.

The reason capitalists and executives of all kinds cost more than labor and are rewarded more than labor, is because labor has little to no value in production; and what value it has in production, constantly decreases with mechanization. So, the problem remains how to organize labor whether human, computational or mechanical.

And while we might argue that middle management has very little value in the organization of labor, organizing the production of goods using labor, using prices and payments as rules, limits and incentives, is the highest contribution to the value of the goods, since the alignment of incentives – what we call ‘execution’ : organizing humans into production – is the art.

And that is the scarcity that the market rewards.

THE PROBLEM OF THE A PRIORI ARGUMENT

If there are no constant relations in economics, but mathematics is the logic of constant relations, and further we attempt to use mathematics to justify intervention in the market for goods and services, then doing is logically impossible. The logical of constant relations, entirely dependent upon constant categories, cannot be used to describe economic conditions and apply them to the future. All we can do with mathematics is mine the recent data for descriptions of what has happened in the existing patterns of sustainable specialization and trade.

So, if the socialist method of production was impossible, and measurement of the economy at all but the aggregate level is impossible, and measurement at the aggregate level does not capture changes in human, social and moral capital, then it becomes very difficult to suggest that governments can do much except (a) limited trade policy, (b) limited industrial policy, and (c) limited education and health policy (d) defend the rule of law and the common law (e) provide a means for the resolution of disputes.

Thus, the prior generations argued that we must both not supplant the market means of dynamically organizing unique instances of production, nor interfere with it, and that we may only rely upon deduction and guesswork, and simply leave the market alone.

However, this is either mistaken – or it is ill said. We can deduce almost nothing of consequence from human action.

First, we can however, TEST any set of statements to determine whether they are rational and what incentives that they produce. But we cannot deduce much of anything at all – we can only test statements and hypotheses to determine likely human action.

Second, when we understand that the problem of production is not labor, nor resources, but ORGANIZING production, what we can do is increasingly expand the means by which groups can cooperate on disparate means.

The most effective way to assist groups in cooperating on means, even if they have disparate or even irreconcilable ends, which we cannot choose between because of the inability to forecast into a kaleidic future, other than value inferences we obtain from existing patterns of specialization and trade, is to suppress all risks OTHER than those of forecasting.

Namely, the suppression of ‘discounts’. Then more discounts we suppress, the more human action that must be pressed into the market for goods and services, entirely upon the price, quality and distribution of those goods in time. (And independent of schemes.)

So, if we understand that the production we organize, is the ability for others to frictionlessly organize production, in a world of constant invention and change, it is not entirely true that we can take little action. It is not the production of goods and services that we assist in producing with our governments, but it is the rules by which we dynamically organize production by the suppression of all discounts, everywhere, such than the only possible actions that remain, are to take risks on one’s forecast of the future within one’s patterns of specialization and trade.

RATHER THAN THE A PRIORI ERROR – WE STATE THIS INSTEAD:

Economics then, consists of:
The near universal human ability to test rationality of incentives.
The near universal human desire to seek discounts.
The use of organized violence to suppress all discounts.
The resulting pressure of all human action into the market.
The construction of institutions to suppress discounting.
The use of empirical measures to gain short term insight into the patterns of trade.
The use of such information to inform participants in the ongoing adjustment of such patterns.

Institutions required are:
1) Articulated Property Rights and Obligations.
2) The common law.
3) An independent Judiciary.
4) Universal standing so that any individual can seek restitution from any other individual for taking discounts, no matter what the accused’s function in society.
5) A body of people with the ability to construct contracts on behalf of larger groups, to produce goods that the market cannot organize to produce because of arbitrariness of the choices, or the openness of such contractual investments to free riding, privatization, and socialization or other discounts.
6) A means for the collection of dividends and choosing between the expenditure on further investments and distribution of proceeds to shareholders.

We do not need much government. What government we do need, need not be a monopoly. What investments we need need not be decided by majority rule – a monopoly. And those services and goods we need, need not be provided by a monopoly bureaucracy.

Even if it may be true that the INITIAL CONSTRUCTION of property rights requires the imposition of a monopoly of those rights, and a total prohibition on discounts, that is the limit of such a monopoly. Which is why corporations of separate interests in creating such a system is superior to monopoly of interests in creating such a system, since no member of such a polycentric order would tolerate the usurpation of his rights by another.

Such a government is a government of unbreakable rules which we call ‘laws’, not a government of people with capacity for decision making, or coercion, or the ability to make laws.

And our defense against that monopoly government and all forms of abuse, is the training of a near-priesthood called judges who adjudicate differences according to private property rights, and the voluntary agreements that we enter into, and the prohibitions against free riding on the goods produced by those agreements we chose NOT to enter into.

And to construct as such, that those judges possess only the incentives to use those laws in the fulfillment of their roles.

We can reduce all of this to the simple assertion, that no man can know the future sufficiently to force others to obey his direction on the use of their minds, bodies, time and property. However, it is quite possible for each of us to judge incentives and for men with training to judge whether property rights were respected or not.

That is all we need.

 

(profound)

From Property to Private Property, High Trust Private Property, and Anarchic High Trust Private Property.

1. Community Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts
1.1 Violence (asymmetry of force)

2. Private property is the result of additional suppression of indirect discounts
2.1 Theft (asymmetry of control)
2.2 Fraud (false information)
2.3 Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)

3. High Trust Private Property is the RESULT of total Suppression of Personal Discounts.
3.1 Omission (Omitting information)
3.2 Obscurantism (Obscuring information)
3.3 Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)
3.4 Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)
3.5 Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)
3.6 Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)

4. Anarchic High Trust Private Property is Result of the total suppression of organized discounts
4.1 Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)
4.2 Corruption ( organized rent seeking)
4.3 Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)
4.4 Extortion (Organized direct theft)
4.5 War (organized violence)

(Note: almost there. I am trying to tie property rights to trust (velocity) )

 

 

“Mises’s contention came in setting the context for Human Action by explaining why people have had such a hard time accepting the validity of (Austrian) economics as a field of knowledge–it does not fit in with anything else.” – Konrad

Love you man, but I want to clean this up a bit. And I hope you will forgive me for using your statements as a jumping off point to articulate this subject a little more clearly than is usual in our field.

2) The first is your statements (a) “put into context” and (b) “human action”.

Praxeologically speaking, any statement regarding human action, not stated as human action, is untestable by praxeological analysis. As such, if you can’t say something in operational terms, then it is possible that you are mistaken, or misled, since only such operational language opens any statement to praxeological testing.

Mises was trying to refute socialism.
He was frustrated because there was not empirical means of demonstrating that it wouldn’t work. So he had to rely on rational deduction. He was attempting to show (as was popper by very different means) how socialism was impossible – particularly, the socialist method of production. Praxeology was his attempt to use the very clear, irrefutable, sympathetic test of the rational incentives of actors given their need to act in real time, to refute the theory that humans would act by the same means without money and prices. Without money and prices, and the incentives that they make possible, humans cannot rationally act. He suggested, and argued poorly, that humans literally could not think, in the same way that we would be radically impaired in our thinking, without the use of numbers, numeric operations, ratios, measurements, and the syllogism.

As such, if people cannot cooperate rationally using property, money, prices and time, then in fact, no science of economics is therefore possible. We cannot conduct a science predicated on a unit of measure dependent upon property and prices, if neither property nor prices no voluntary cooperation exist. That is non-logical.

We should note that this is an argument, now proven, both logically and by evidence, that the socialist method of production does not work, precisely as Mises predicted, because Calculation and it’s obverse, Incentives, are impossible.

But this is a limited criticism. We must understand that the limit of Misesian criticism, is the socialist mode of production.

It does not mean that progressive taxation, especially by simply increasing transaction costs at the high end, and redistributing the fees on those costs to consumers, or investing them into infrastructure violate the ability of people to think, plan, and coordinate their actions. The science of economics can in fact exist, if the logical method of measurement that it depends upon: voluntary cooperation using property, money and prices, does exist/

So the Misesian critique of economics as a discipline dependent upon human action is a refutation of the socialist mode of production, but it is not a refutation of the democratic socialist redistributive method of production.

(Although I am not sure anyone else has said so this clearly. I haven’t run across it if so. Caplans ‘Why I am not..” is an obscurant, and meaningless argument which he later took the teeth out of himself : there is no difference between economic calculation and incentives. They are mutually dependent concepts. An argument which I forgive him for, and attribute to the folly of his youth. )

2) The second problem you put forth is that people have a problem understanding Austrian Economics. And I’m afraid that’s just not demonstrably true.

(a) the argument from the mainstream economics profession is that the insights of the Austrians have been fully integrated into mainstream economics.

(b) The only remaining dispute that separates Austrian economists from mainstream economists today, is the theory of the business cycle, where by continuous distortions of the money supply, while long term neutral in affect on price, are non-neutral on the Sustainable Patters Of Specialization and Trade – largely due to little more than the fact that humans due to the process of youth, maturity, reproduction, decline in learning capacity (or increase in required repetitions), as well as normal aging, mean that not only are prices, and contracts ‘sticky’ but so are human lives and relations. And while we may ameliorate the problems caused by the stickiness of prices,we appear to have very little control over contracts, and the accumulated impact on individuals in the business cycle means that such cycles, the longer that they are perpetuated, force their members to become increasingly sticky, and if more than four years to nine years in duration, that it is no longer possible for individuals to transition at anywhere near the same quality of life. This may in fact be another argument against immigration which only exacerbates this problem severely.

The last argument, and the one made by conservative advocates of Austrian economics, is not just the utility of the lost human capital, but the loss of moral capital, and the increase in demand for the state as insurer, now that the individual citizens have been placed at risk by the use of credit and insurance by the state, rathe than allowing the natural, and frequent cycle of PSST to discourage people from over-investing in any given pattern, and instead, developing dynamic risk protection given the constant reordering of such patterns.

3) The point being the one I articulated in my first response to your post: that the Austrian method makes visible the involuntary transfer of property, and the behavior of individuals within patterns of sustainable specialization and trade IF WE MEASURE patterns of sustainable specialization and trade as our category of measurement. (industry networks are the highest level of meaningful aggregation). And investment in trade policy and industrial policy should outweigh any interest in monetary policy. If only because those policies have been in use since the dawn of human cities, and appear to have worked well. Whereas, the use of Keynesian aggregates and monetary policy does not localize distortions and those distortions that are caused by such policy are not measured, or even measurable.

Just as Einstein did not invent relativity(actually, constancy), Keynes did not invent his ideas either – he adapted them from Marx, and cut out the references to prevent criticism of what he had accomplished via even greater obscurant language than Marx: the forcible involuntary transfer of wealth and the consequential empowerment of the government as the vehicle for such transfer. All of which was justified as a means of decreasing unemployment.

The sacrifice of the west for reduction of unemployment and facilitation of the expansion of the reproduction of the lower classes that had been held in check by private property and manorialism for more than 2500 years.

The great weakness of human reason is our inability to disentangle multiple axis of complex relations.

Only analysis of the voluntary transfer of property allows us to disentangle heavily loaded propositions and reduce what appears to be many competing and overlapping axes of causality to one simple factor: whether property, which is the necessary device for cooperation, has been voluntarily expropriated or voluntarily exchanged.

CLOSING
This is probably worth sharing or saving for later reference.

Affections
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev

 

 

Praxeological analysis, and Austrian economics, are important because they make visible all transfers, and whether or not they are against the desires of those from whom property is transferred. Aggregate macro economics and Keynesian economics are important because they obscure the transfer of goods against the desires of those from whom property is transferred.

But, both of these methods: Aggregate Keynesian and Austrian Micro, are actually moral forms of analysis, more so than they are different sciences. If one subscribes to the proposition that all property is and must be private, then moral decisions are a function of voluntary or involuntary transfer of property. If one subscribes to the proposition that all property is owned communally and we all rent it and gain commissions on its use for the benefit of all (as under democratic socialism) , then the distribution of proceeds from the rentals is more important to the moral code than ownership and right to such proceeds.

The collectivist proposition is that all property is owned communally and that we merely lease it from the commons, and gain some portions of our commissions on it. The libertarian proposition is that all property is privately owned, and we voluntarily contribute to commons at our own discretion.

Any rational analysis of the evidence of economic inquiry from either the communal or private spectrum will illustrate that both forms of research have largely approached the same answers and discoveries of the increasingly complex properties of economic activity, over time.

The difference remains the choice of moral bias determined by the allocation of property rights in a collective body under the same territorial monopoly of property definitions and means of dispute resolution.

The scientific method is likewise a moral discipline. It prevents the use of a wide variety of errors and misrepresentations.  This moral discipline will over time, because of the competition of ideas, suppress errors and fraud. Just as the market, over time, will suppress errors and fraud. The simplistic means by which the scientific method succeeds in this moral objective, is the requirement for operational language.  That is, a set of observable actions open to confirmation and falsification.

Praxeology, likewise implicitly mandates the moral requirement that we can express any action in observable, empirical form.  It is likewise a requirement for operational language. Both the physical sciences, and praxeological science, place a requirement for operational language on all scientific and economic statements.

This requirement for EMPIRICISM is what renders praxeology a moral science. As such:

(a) Human moral intuitions, instincts, and norms are universally, a set of prescriptions enumerating the uses and non uses of property.
(b) We can only make visible whether any action is moral or not, by operational language: determination of whether any transfer of property was voluntary.
(c) The reason that we can perform a test of voluntary transfer is that as human beings we are marginally indifferent, and can through subjective experience, objectively determine whether transfers are rational for the actor.

All the logical disciplines are moral disciplines, and all are instrumental methods, and we not only desire, but require these instrumental methods, because we in fact do argue and must argue, and must rely upon these methods, because those methods determine the use of property – firstly the property of our minds, bodies and time.

We require property – albeit the distribution of property rights between individuals, families and commons varies greatly depending upon the structure of production and the structure of the family, and the homogeneity or diversity of the  population in all of the above. But regardless of the distribution of normative, or descriptive ownership in property between the collective and the individual,

This is the appropriate and defensible argument in favor of praxeology.

Mises intuited it. Rothbard artfully defended it. But they had to because they lacked the knowledge that we have today. And instead, unfortunately, they relied upon a priori, deductive certainty. A reliance which doomed praxeology to failure in broader economic circles – by simple virtue of the fact that all of economics cannot be deduced from the axiom of action without empirical support.

Very little can be deduced from it. Quite the opposite. But, while we can deduce very little, we can TEST ANY ECONOMIC STATEMENT praxeologically for rationality and voluntary transfer.  As such praxeology is in fact, an empirical science, which we test by sympathy, not a rational one one.

They got it wrong. Sorry.  Don’t hang onto whether they were right or not. Revel in the fact that we now have the ability to understand that praxeology is a means of measuring and TESTING all human action for whether or not it is voluntary and rational (moral) or involuntary and non-rational (immoral).

 

(There we go. Today was a milestone.)

Universally descriptive, universally commensurable logic of ethics. We no longer must rely on moral or rational argument in advocacy of moral, ethical or political preference. We can rely on ratio-scientific argument under which illustrates the multitude of thefts, or suppression of thefts, being conducted in any action.

Propertarianism, the logic of property, is the formal logic of cooperation.

  • Terminology
  • Grammar
  • Compactness
  • Explanatory power
  • Testability and Falsifiability (via Praxeology)

Praxeology, when corrected under Propertarianism by the enumeration of all types of property demonstrated by human action, is scientific because it consists in the universal, test of rationality of incentives, by means of sympathetic experience.

Private Property as the result of the suppression of discounts.
The suppression of discounts leaves the only possible human cooperation as fully informed, warranted, voluntary exchange. And the only possible means of competition, the quality and price of the production of goods and services.

Cause. Private property is a consequence of the organized application of violence for the purpose of suppressing all discounts, in all human action, regardless of sphere.

 

Prescriptive vs Descriptive

There is a very great difference between rothbardian libertarianism as an aspirational philosophy ADVOCATING liberty, and Propertarianism as the correction and completion of praxeology as the science of human cooperation. Libertarianism is structured as advocacy: a NORMATIVE ETHIC. Propertarianism is structured as explanation: A DESCRIPTIVE ETHIC.

And that is the difference between libertarianism, and my attempt to reform libertarianism in Propertarianism. Or rather, merge libertarianism and conservatism into a single rational language, that unifies the libertarian emphasis on economy, with the conservative emphasis on norms. As a united attack on totalitarians who wish to restore rent seeking and free riding to the masses.

Conservatives are right on morality. They are the remnants of aristocratic egalitarianism. The explicit, universal ban on free-riding that occurred under the various forms of manorialism.

I am using the insights from the Dark Enlightenment (reactionary conservatives) to ground libertarianism (reduction of rights to property rights) in ratio-scientific rather than purely rational (deductive) terms.

Objectives

My objectives are:

    1) To explain why Rothbardian libertarianism remains the philosophy of an insignificant minority, despite Hoppe’s solution to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy, and the reduction of all rights to property rights.

    2) To correct the definitions of property, ethics and morality, so that they have full explanatory power, rather than explanatory power over absolute private property. And in doing so provide a universal language fulfilling the promise of praxeology (calculation, incentives and action) and creating a universally commensurable grammar and terminology of ethics, morality and politics.

    3) In doing so to show that PROPERTARIANISM, when property is correctly defined, is fully explanatory for all human political behavior – whether or not individuals express a preference for LIBERTARIAN social orders.

    4) To offer alternative political solutions for cooperation between morally heterogeneous polities, building upon Hoppe’s insurance model, and possibly direct rather than representative democracy. I do not necessarily think that I am adding much more to Hoppe’s insight other than basing it upon ratio scientific argument explaining the totality of human moral codes, so that it is harder to refute those insights without exposing such actions as forms of theft.

    5) In this sense I hope to have completed the promise of libertarianism, by reducing all rights, all ethics and moral argument, and therefore all political arguments, to statements of property rights – and in doing so demonstrate the casual link between biologically necessary reproductive strategy, the structure of production, the structure of the family, the structure of moral codes, and the demand for different levels of intervention by the ‘state’.

    (These are pretty lofty ambitions. But I think I have done it. I can see the sculpture under the stone, I’m just carving away the excess at this point.)

I knew Hoppe had the answer the first time I heard him speak. The explanatory power when taken along with calculation and incentives was there: a necessary rather than arbitrary analysis of political orders. There was something subtly wrong with it. I only intuited that. But I have spent about fourteen years trying to identify an repair it for my more ratio-scientific generation.

In Propertarianism, I extend property to a UNIVERSAL DESCRIPTIVE ETHICS – those demonstrated by humans rather than NORMATIVE PRIVATE PROPERTY ETHICS that we have developed as a set of technologies for the suppression of various forms of free riding.

The Theory is “All Rights Are Reducible To Property Rights”

The theory is that ALL RIGHTS can be reduced to property rights. Even commons can be reduced to shares of individual property rights. Even norms can be reduced to property rights.

The NAP is an epistemic test of whether private property rights have been violated. It is an exceptional test. But that is the limit of it. One still needs a theory to test.

Property Rights: Cause or Consequence?

We can argue the construction of property from the bottom up as the prohibition of discounts, or from the top down, as advocacy of private property:

    1) If you prohibit all discounts, then you have private property.
    2) If you have private property, you may or may not have prohibited all discounts.

In this light, which I will show below, humans do not necessarily desire private property, but they universally demonstrate a distaste for discounts (cheating). As such, private property is the natural consequence of SUPPRESSING ALL CHEATING, and requiring earning of benefits.

This is a profound theoretical difference in understanding liberty:

The prohibition on all cheating among members of an extended family of common genetic interests, versus the advocacy of private property.

This may also explain why the mature societies closer to the fertile crescent are teh most inbred, and serve as a warning that liberty is an artifact of primitivism, and that low-trust, inbred familialism with a high demand for a strong state, is the norm into which all societies mature, unless freedom is constantly and vigilantly maintained.

The Fallacy of Crusoe’s Island

This thought experiment is backwards, and a common source of confusion in libertarian circles. Crusoe on his island, is surrounded by an impenetrable army, called ‘the sea’. So property is created by the force of the ocean. Just as argumentation is presupposed upon the presence of violence.

The ethical question is not what to do when one is upon an island,and property already has been created by the sea. The question is, how does one, on a plain, heavily populated by others, construct the institution of private property against the multitudes who would seek to appropriate it by all means of discounting possible?

By the organized application of violence. That is how.

The Crusoe argument is nonsensical. It presupposes what it attempts to demonstrate. It is true that once we assume property we can correctly deduce implications from that point. But argument and agreement are not the source of property itself. Violence is. Was. Forever will be.

The Construction of Property from a Prohibition on Discounts

“THOU SHALT NOT LIE, CHEAT, STEAL OR HARM”
This rule applies to all human societies whether all property is communal or all private.

I. CAUSAL AXES
Four Possible Actions:

    Axis 1 : Physical Action (force)
    Axis 2 : Verbal Action (negotiation)
    Axis 3 : Secrecy – Asymmetry Of Information(fraud/theft).
    Axis 4 : Denial of Cooperation (boycott).

Restated as Weapons of Influence
We humans have invented only four weapons of influence.

    Influence 1) Force – (Violence and Law)
    Influence 2) Remuneration – (Exchange and Commerce)
    Influence 3) Asymmetry of Information – Deception – (fraud)
    Influence 4) Exclusion – (Moral Rules and Boycotting)

II. DISCOUNTS
However:

We can use permutations of the above weapons of influence to extract DISCOUNTS.

Forms of Discount:

    1. Violence (asymmetry of force)
    2. Theft (asymmetry of control)
    3. Fraud (false information)
    4. Omission (Omitting information)
    5. Obscurantism (Obscuring information)
    6. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)
    7. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)
    8. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)
    9. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)
    10. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)
    11. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)
    12. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)
    13. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)
    14. Extortion (Organized direct theft)
    15. War (organized violence)

III. FORMS OF PROPERTY

1. Several (Personal) Property
Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”

    1. Physical Body
    2. Actions and Time
    3. Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.
    4. Several Property: Those things we claim a monopoly of control over.

2. Interpersonal (Relationship) Property

Cooperative Property: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”

    1. Mates (access to sex/reproduction)
    2. Children (genetic reproduction)
    3. Familial Relations (security)
    4. Non-Familial Relations (utility)
    5. Consanguineous Relations (tribal and family ties)
    6. Racial property (racial ties)
    7. Organizational ties (work)
    8. Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)
    9. Status and Class (reputation)

3. Institutional (Community) Property

Institutional Property: “Those objects into which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

    1. Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics and morals. Informal institutional property is nearly impossible to quantify and price. The costs are subjective and consists of forgone opportunities.

    2. Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws. Formal institutional property is easy to price. costs are visible. And the productivity of the social order is at least marginally measurable.

4. Artificial Property

Artificial Property: “Can a group issue specific rights to members?” This topic is dependent, upon the ORIGIN of rights in the circumstance. If markets are made, then the shareholders of the market may create artificial property of any type that they desire. Including but not limited to:

    1. Shares in property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (claims for partial ownership)
    2. Monopoly Property such as intellectual property. (grants of monopoly within a geography)
    3. Trademarks and Brands (prohibitions on fraudulent transfers within a geography).


Questions on the Limits of Property Rights

1. Ownership of the market depends upon:

    i) “Markets Evolved” and regulation is a form of theft,
    or
    ii) “Markets Were Created” and regulations by shareholders or their representatives are an expression of property rights. History tells us the latter.

2. Whether, we pay for our property rights by forgoing our opportunity for using violence, theft and fraud – or using any form of discount. If so, then by consequence, people pay for the norm of property – and in fact, pay for ALL norms. And as such, failing to observe norms is a theft from the shareholders of those norms.

5. Limits: On the limits of property rights (at what points one’s rights begin and end). For example, some would argue that the right to property is infinite regardless of the circumstances of others. Some would argue that property rights are a norm that is subject to limits at the extremes. So, for example, if I have gallons of water in a desert I cannot let the man before me die of thirst. Some would say I must simply give it to him. Others would argue that the man owes for the drink of water at a later date at market price, but that I cannot refuse to give it to him under this condition of duress simply because he currently lacks a means of payment. I support the latter position since it does not violate the principle of property it only presses my assets into a receivable. Otherwise I am profiting from suffering which is an involuntary transfer, not a voluntary exchange.

6. Temporality:
Whether property rights apply across time (after death), and across generations.

Trust (Velocity of transactions)

The NAP, as used in libertarian ideological discourse, suffers from the weakness of the low trust society, in that it relies entirely upon Ostracization to suppress various forms of fraud. The problem is that we cannot demonstrate that fraud is suppressed without the associated norms rules and laws that suppress it. Then market is demonstrably insufficient for the suppression of fraud, and certainly for the suppression of fraud by either omission or obfuscation.

The high trust, aristocratic egalitarian society of the northern Protestant west, relies on the ADDITION of these moral constraints to the NAP:

    a) Truth: Truthful statements
    b) Symmetry: Complete statements
    c) Warranty: proof of true and complete statements.
    d) Proof of Work : that one profits only from adding value (doing work).
    e) Externality: Other than by competition you may not externalize costs.

    a’) Respect property.
    b’) Speak the whole truth.
    c’) Your word is your warranty, and you will be held to it.
    d’) And you must actual do work not profit from misfortune.

These ethics arose because everyone in the area was closely related, and as such they obeyed family ethical biases, rather than adopting extra family ethical biases. This is why diversity only works for a short while, until power, signal and property structures can be coordinated using signals within the extended family group. Canada will only be politically “Canadian” for two more generations. And London and New York are already ‘post-anglo’ corporations rather than city-nations.

Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans

The intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules:

    0) Private property
    1) Voluntary Exchange
    2) Symmetry and Warranty*
    3) Prohibition on Externality*
    4) Requirement for Value Added*
    5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding.
    6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains

These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution.

Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws):

    7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law)
    8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.)
    9) The right of exclusion (ostracization).

These last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft).

High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts

These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods.

As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market

Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust.

As Such,

    1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts,
    2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts
    3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts.

As Such, A Common Law System Can Function

Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible.

Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability

As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts.

Praxeology: Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives, supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE.

    1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable.
    2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable
    3) Measurements render relations commensurable
    4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable.
    5) Money renders goods and services commensurable
    6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable

Comprehensibility

I am not interested in Criticizing Kinsella, Hoppe, the BHL’s or anyone else. I’d rather advance their agenda, because I advocate big-tent libertarianism, if only for the problem of accessibility of ideas to different quintiles. But myself, addressing my demographic, I’d rather advance liberty in ratio-scientific, rather than ratio-moral language. The prior generation of thinkers had to rely on rationalism and deduction to fight the intellectual and ideological battle with the socialists who were winning the population and the institutions.

But our generation does not NEED to rely on rationalism alone, and instead, can rely on evidence that, since about 1980, has been produced in volume; and at this point, overwhelmingly demonstrates that universalism, whether libertarian universalism or communal universalism, would be intolerable. And that micro-states catering to different moral codes is the only possible route to liberty for those of us who desire it. But that liberty is neither desirable or advantageous for the many, for whom collectivism, free riding and rent seeking are the only effective means of group competition.

I am not terribly concerned just yet whether my work is comprehensible or not, since until I have reduced it to a book, there isn’t enough of it in one place for anyone to criticize. On the other hand, it has taken prior writers on average about seven or eight years to put together a work of this nature, and I’m only half way through that time period.

As I state frequently, I make my philosophy in public and those that follow me tend to appreciate it – errors and all. I treat arguments in analytic philosophy as theories that must be tested. If I can construct an argument that I cannot defeat, then that is the best that I can do. And some of them succeed and others fail. Hopefully my book will contain only the successes.

I am too well aware of individuals using the terms ‘confused’ to criticize opposing propositions whose only failure is to conform to their structure of argument. I am not confused. I am struggling to articulate in existing language a counter-intuitive proposition, that morals are not available through introspection, any more than is the mind, even if the source of moral biases are scientifically identifiable as reproductive strategies. I have seen numerous criticism of ‘engineering thinking’, mostly of others, despite the fact that rationalists have, in their proximity to analogous religious argument, failed to grasp that most of the advancements in conservative thought are in fact coming from engineers, for the very reason, that unlike science, physics, macro economics, and philosophy, engineering must constantly reconcile demonstrated human behavior with scientific evidence and formulae. I would address this problem in both ‘departmental mathematics’ as well as Macro Economics as well as any branch outside of scientific philosophy here, but the truth is, that other than maybe Rod Long, I’m not sure any other reader could grasp it.

Further, Hoppe is not exactly an easy read. And if Hoppe is challenging go back to Bohm Bawerk, whose writing is nearly opaque with analogy. Clarity is a function of marketing and having clarity as a goal. The accessibility of an idea has nothing to do with whether an idea provides compact explanatory power and survives falsification. Rothbard is not challenging because he does not solve the hard problem of norms. Propertarianism does solve that problem. And I can reduce it to less than 10K words. It is the application of the principles, and the refutation of criticism that takes a book length work. I am struggling (at Hoppe’s criticism) to use extant language, and it is working, but I must make it increasingly compact, which is an art in itself.

We Must Understand That Rothbardian Ethics Have Failed

All of that prevarication aside, we must realize that we libertarians have not succeeded in affecting policy. We have given OTHER libertarians a common language, and label for our preference. We have united people with libertarian sentiments and intuitions under a common name, common ideology, and in rare circumstances, common philosophy. But we have been unable to affect policy. By contrast, the conservatives have affected the government, bringing it to a halt, merely by appealing to traditional morality – even against the economic interests of conservatives. They may only have managed to put up a resistance, and failed to implement new policy, but they correctly understood the moral code of western peoples, and ‘libertarians’ didn’t.

That is an empirical criticism. It is what it is. Evidence is evidence. Libertarianism can be demonstrated as a sentiment, a moral argument, a rational argument, an economic argument to utility, or a ratio-scientific argument about human nature. Ideologies make use of sentiments, religions of moral arguments, and political scientists make use of scientific evidence. If your libertarianism is ideological or religious in structure, then that is one thing. If it is rational that is another. If it is ratio-scientifically based, it is yet another. And mine is ratio-scientifically based. Philosophy in this context is just a means of reordering the objects and relations and values we attach to them prior to developing a system of measurement for them. But to reduce something to a science requires a means of commensurability and property, if defined as demonstrated, rather than defined as aspired to, provides us with a science of cooperation.

Criticizing the left is easy because most of what they do is demonstrate conspicuous consumption in an effort to gain cheap status signals, by spending other people’s money and flaunting disregard for norms. But libertarians, too often justly called ‘asperger-tarians’ are far too often enraptured by their self rewarding signal economy of self righteousness to grasp that liberty is demonstrably not desirable or advantageous for many. It is actually advantageous for those who do not desire liberty, that we exist as libertarians SOMEWHERE in the world, to innovate and compete, but not necessarily in the same geographic monopoly of arbitrary property rights, insured by the threat of violence. They cannot compete with us without organizing the equivalent of trade policy against us in exchange for access to their markets. It is not rational for them to expect us to. We insure ourselves with our competitiveness. They insure themselves as a collective by mutually sharing rents and free riding, and negotiating terms as a block. We may prefer otherwise, but to enact liberty upon those who do not desire it is to ask them to let us prey upon their uncompetitiveness.

Why Hoppe Is Right – On Everything

It is the monopoly of government and the state that forces us under the same insurer of both economic transactions and social insurance policy. When under federation in the swiss model of direct democracy, we could separate the functions of insurer of transactions (property rights) with insurer of life and limb (social programs.) In Hoppe’s model we hire our own insurers. These arguments are the same. He is right.

It is quite simple do demonstrate that while the Argumentation ethic is sufficient for deduction of all that Hoppe has deduced from it, it is not a CAUSAL argument.

If Hoppe’s insights are to survive the loading he has added and that his critics have added, and his critics are to be allayed, we must complete his work by transforming his insights from entirely rational to ratio-scientific arguments. I am doing that. My argument is that Hoppe, despite relying entirely on Argumentation Ethics, rather than the underlying causal properties that give rise to opportunities for argumentation, has correctly deduced everything – including his correct stance on immigration.

And that if we use the explanatory power of Propertarianism, we can further reduce not only all RIGHTS, but all human BEHAVIOR to statements of property and its voluntary or involuntary transfer. Because that reduction is the universal cause of all property rights in all cultures, in all circumstances, for all of mankind.

Therefore the difference between Hoppe’s analysis of what would be PREFERABLE for people with libertarian sentiments, and for Hayekian reasons of productive utility and wealth,

No one other than me, that I know of, is trying to convert Hoppe to ratio-scientific argument and prove that his deductions were correct, and that the criticisms of his Argumentation Ethics are erroneous in so far as that they are correct that Argumentation is not a cause. But incorrect in that argumentation is not sufficient for the purpose of deducing all that Hoppe has deduced from it.

(That this has escaped so many other philosophers is somewhat surprising to me.)

As such, what propertarianism does, is provide a universal language for exposing involuntary transfer (theft) and conducting commensurable arguments in all moral codes regardless of the portfolio of moral codes made use of by any polity.

Failures and Successes

Hayek did not correctly understand Mises’ arguments and tried to solve the problem of universal behavior using, what I would call ‘psychology’ and the properties of the mind. However, Mises was closer to the answer provided by Propertarianism with the Obverse of Economic Calculation, and its Reverse: Incentives. However, Mises again, out of necessity, attempted to create a rational and deductive science without integrating all forms of property, especially norms and human capital into his analysis. For this reason both Mises and Hayek despite being very close, failed to make the observation that it was not money or psychology or mind that all human behavior could be deduced from, but property in all its forms as humans actually demonstrably practice the discipline of property allocation and use.

Rothbard was very, very close. Unfortunately in his quest for a rigorous ideology and admonition of bureaucracy, he put forth an argument again, which discounted the high trust norms. Instead, arguing that the market would be sufficient to suppress the various subtle forms of theft. We all draw upon our ethical backgrounds. Me on my anglo imperialism, Hoppe on his Northern Germanic nationalism, and Rothbard on his Jewish diasporic tribalism. Without the knowledge of Propertarianism – that all behavior is reducible to property rights- we must rely on our intuitions. Even Weber and Durkheim came close but did not succeed in making Rothbard and Hoppe’s insights.

And if I do my work correctly, just as Rothbard solved the problem of normative institutions for homogenous diasporic tribes, and Hoppe the problem of formal institutions and normative institutions for homogenous landed nuclear families, I will solve the problem of rhetoric, commensurability, and institutions for entirely heterogeneous polities. In this sense we will have completed the promise of libertarianism, by reducing all rights, in fact, all ethics and moral argument, and therefore all political arguments, to statements of property rights, and in doing so demonstrate the casual link between biologically necessary reproductive strategy, the structure of the family, the structure of moral codes, and teh demand for different levels of intervention by the ‘state’.

The Ghetto vs The Aristocracy

This is the ethic of the high trust society, and the only society every to invent and employ liberty – the protestant west. It may be unclear that the Absolute Nuclear family is yet again another institution that forbids discounts. And that is why ANF families from northern european cultures prefer liberty, and NF and Traditional families from southern Europe prefer more of the state: because ANF Families suppress all free riding and NF and Traditional families do not.

ANF and property rights are eugenic and ostracizing. They are the rights of aristocratic egalitarians. The rights of those who can compete. Those that cannot compete do not seek those rights as they view free riding and rent seeking at the very least to be necessary for competitive survival.

That is all that there is to understand about politics.

Rothbardian’s NAP is the ethic of the ghetto. It is not the high trust ethic of the northern europeans, and certainly not a sufficient ethic to allow a low friction common law society to function without a strong state.

For this reason the NAP is insufficient AS A THEORY, and it is the reason for the failure of rothbardian, libertarian ethics to gain any acceptance in the population. The reason being, that it’s too low a bar. It does not prohibit discounts>

I will leave it to Kevin MacDonald to illustrate where Rothbard got these ideas from and why.

I was very frustrated with Rothbard originally, but now see him, as Hayek saw Mises, and as I see Hayek, as a participant in an intuitive culture which they lacked the scientific evidence to escape by comparative analysis.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev

 

(I’ll leave it to the reader to suggest which one of us makes a better argument. But I think I have the better argument.)

Gary argues that Bitcoins (BTC) aren’t money, and that they are speculative shares. Both of these statements are true, but neither of them is a weakness. They are strengths

I agree bit-coins aren’t money (a commodity). Nor are they are fiduciary media (redeemable). But they do qualify as a money substitute as either token money, or shares of a stock that is highly liquid (non-redeemable tokens).

    1) GREY MARKET TOKEN MONEY
    The very worst I can see, is that Bitcoins or some equivalent will evolve into a grey market money for grey market goods. This has already begun to occur.

    2) LOW TRUST TRANSACTION MONEY
    Their value is lower costs and protecting your credit card information. It lowers the consumer’s perception of risk. Bitcoins eliminate the problem of recurring charges from online transactions and subscriptions.

    3) LOW FEE HIGH RISK TRANSACTION MONEY
    As soon as someone creates an escrow service for more expensive grey market transactions, that will succeed. As such it is an exceptional currency for elites.

    4) A MONEY SUBSTITUTE FOR LOW CONSUMER VALUE TO MONEY BROKERS
    Bitcoins eliminate the problem of needing a ‘bank’ that can identify you by abstract means. In other words, it is an exceptional currency for the margins of society, just as credit cards are an exceptional currency for the upper quintiles, debit cards for the lower middle, and cash is for the lowest.

So at this point I felt I might take the issue up with North directly. I think he is distracted by the term ‘money’ when it comes to Bitcoin. And while he is CORRECT that the price of Bitcoins are speculative for INVESTORS in Bitcoins, he is incorrect that the price of Bitcoins are intolerable for CONSUMERS of Bitcoins when they are used as a means of clearance.

The speculative nature of bitcoins is the means of compensating investors in the infrastructure needed to process and prove bitcoin transactions. This is not a weakness. It is a virtue. It is a cashless means of compensating investors, and the act itself creates some demand. And we have seen that demand.

Once Bitcoins have had speculative bubbles burst a few times, the speculation will diminish as it has with other speculative commodities – altough because of low volume, volatility should continue. But holding Bitcoins for ten minutes while you make a purchase on your credit card, then use the Bitcoins for an online purchase is not going to impede the transactions. My self, I’d love to see a credit card service for doing just that, instantaneously charging my card, transferring the funds to someone else via bitcoins, or at least just resolving exchange between parties via bitcoins.

THEY ARE’T MONEY – BUT THEN LITTLE *IS*
Bitcoins are NOT MONEY. They are speculative shares of stock in a custom stock exchange, whose advocates seek those shares to be universally owned, and therefore usable as a money substitute.

Fact is we don’t know if it can work or not because this particular attempt at creating a money substitute has not been tried as a pre-purchase good, and similar efforts have been previously limited to evolutions on the wire transfer system – which is high cost and omnidirectional. I am arguing that like pornography built the Internet, the grey market will build Bitcoin or some equivalent.

And I think that it is very hard to argue against those facts simply because one is confused by the marketing use of the term ‘money’, and failing to see this particular media as non-redeemable token-money, or highly commoditized shares of stock.

BUSINESS MODELS
We can think of any number of business models where the transaction costs are low, but lower transaction costs are meaningful (retail), and the grey market (online).

I think it is unwise to be fooled by the environmental legitimacy of the enduring credit system that is used to manage human beings. And wiser instead, to look at business models that serve different needs because of different transaction costs and therefore different purchasing power.

Something I found very obvious when we built software for check cashing services. Classes serve each other. They use the same money. But in different forms. With different transaction costs. Cash has a VERY HIGH transaction cost to the lower classes. It is easily stolen. It is nearly impossible to secure. And I suggested, for example, a payroll service in Bitcoin that would bypass the check cashing services, and therefore the need for the lower classes to have bank accounts. This eliminates the need for low income areas serving low income people, cash that can be stolen in robberies. It eliminates bank fees on checks, debit cards. It eliminates clearing times on funds.

In fact, on a moral basis, I’d push Bitcoins as a public service for the poor on that basis alone. Where the WEAKNESS of Bitcoin as a non-redeemable good is a benefit precisely because it is NOT redeemable: it helps transform cash into abstract property that cannot be easily stolen, as we have transformed MOST assets into abstract property that cannot be stolen, and which is one of the reasons for the decline in crime: you can’t steal what’s hard to steal.

SUCCESS ON THIS BASIS ALONE
I do not see Bitcoin fulfilling the libertarian fantasy of an alternative to fiat currency or hard currency at any particular point in the future. However, the low transaction costs of these goods for markets currently NOT served by the banking system, (or tolerated by regulation) is, as we have seen with online pornography and drug purchases, sufficient to drive demand for this product.

(But if and only if the user interface problem can be sufficiently solved to serve as I’ve stated above.)

CONTRA AUSTRIANISM
I do not let my consensus with the Austrian trade cycle, and the Austrian recognition of opportunity costs, or my distaste for (hatred of) the immoral socialist, totalitarian state, interfere with my analytical reasoning.

We should not defend the ‘brand’ money, by reducing it to as an ideological term subject to sanctity and reverence. And we should not fail to understand the multitude of uses for the multitudes of mediums of exchange.

If you want to argue that Bitcoins are not money. That’s well and good. Because as a store of value they are as weak as a fiduciary media, without the benefit of being redeemable. They are in a speculative phase right now like any stock that is issued and has low volume. They are likely to crash.

CLOSING : NO REASON NOT TO SUCCEED
So if you are an investor in Bitcoin, then you may or may not succeed. I’m betting that people are not buying low and selling at the highs on the way up and taking advantage of the lack of transaction costs. We can’t do that with stocks because of high transaction costs. We can manipulate Bitcoin prices more easily for this reason. But investors will be ruined in waves, and that’s fine.

That has no bearing on the short term use of BTC. It only has bearing on its use as a store of value over longer periods of volatility. And even that volatility will be eliminated by more extensive use.

The grey market is sufficient incentive for BTC success.

(EDIT: ADDITIONAL POSTS:)

Well, I mean, no. lol

Because commodity money degrades to a still-consumable commodity that is still subject to pricing by market forces independent of its use as money. Bitcoins do not. BTC are issued as a fiduciary instrument, like notes or stocks, but they are not redeemable like notes. They are not a claim against assets like stocks. Instead, They are “token money”. A non-redeemable token used as a money substitute. They are just like the tickets you must buy at amusement parks in order to access rides, so that the vendors of the rides don’t misreport their income, and therefore their ‘tax’ by the amusement park holder. In this case, these tokens exist to PREVENT the use of the vendor ‘the state’ or the financial banking system from laying claim (rent, commission, or tax) on the financial transactions.

I mean. It’s not money proper. It’s token money. I use the word shares because they are issued like shares in exchange for work performed.

The fact that it’s open source doesn’t mean anything. It is still a private, unredeemable token money with an unarticulated, common law, unenforceable shareholder agreement.

The fact that it is marketed as ‘money’ can fall under three interpretations: (a) ignorance by the manufacturer, (b) fraud by the manufacturer, or (c) aspirational language commonly used in advertising, that the consumer is expected to be smart enough to understand. We do not consider aspirational language fraud, we consider it tolerable since it is difficult and expensive to police. Although the public, in general, objects to this use of language as obscurant and misleading.

BTC are not money. They are money substitutes. They can be used as a money substitute. The genius of BTC is that they are indexed to fiat currencies, and as such form clearing function without the necessity of reserve currencies, and un denominated, so that they appreciate as do stocks – at least in the early phases.

I see BTC as nothing more than a brilliant means of financing a new digital commerce network, and a network that insulated from regulatory capture, and limited monopoly rent-seeking and free riding (banking), and the rest of it is just advertising, and silliness.

Anything can be USED as a money substitute, and we use many money substitutes, whether natural or fiat.

But to state that something is in fact, money, is, by any rational measure, an act of fraud. This is why some libertarian theorists object to bitcoin. Because it is not money. And because libertarians and austrians are very particular about protecting the misuse and appropriation of the term money, since money is so terribly important for the retention of property rights.

I do not see how not being classified as ‘money proper’ and instead being classified as ‘a non-denominated token money’ which is a ‘money substitute’, and free of regulatory capture and rent seeking is damaging to bitcoin.

In fact, given what I have read, I think the misrepresentation of bitcoin as money has been the soure of most negative representation of it.

We forget that most economists do not understand the properties of money. And as far as I can tell, I haven’t found anyone else who understand it any better than I do. And given that it’s not particularly interesting to me, that means that it’s very very hard to say it’s sold honestly.

(EDIT : ADDITIONAL POST)

I don’t dispute the value of bitcoin or I wouldn’t invest in it. I simply state that it is not in fact ‘money proper’ as mises defined it. it is an exceptional innovation, brilliantly constructed, and brilliantly conceived. I can’t say enough good about it. But as a philosopher, I must hold to the truth, and the truth is that BTC are not money. They are a money substitute most closely analogous to undenominated token money (red, blue, green coins etc) that are purchased with some other form of money and can be used as a substitute for money, where they are accepted. Because they are undenominated, and their price determined by fiat money, they appreciate and depreciate independent of the price of fiat money.

I think something above that I said is pretty insightful. That is, that BTC is the OPPOSITE of rent-seeking fiat money. And I think that’s important. Because that’s why libertarians should like it.
2 hours ago · Like

Curt Doolittle @Roman. BTC’s need ‘the permission and sanction of the third party network’ to be put to use, and can only be used within the context of the third party network. And without the network they fail. The fact that this network is widely subsidized by the internet cost structure, and the voluntary participation of gamblers (miners) does not compensate for the fact that the BTC structure can disappear and BTC are unusable, whereas the state can disappear and fiat currency retains its utility. Maybe more so.

As such, if you could trade copies of software somehow. (We do use them that way when licensing permits) the software would still function on your computer even if the manufacturer went out of business. And if it didn’t, I think you could sue the corporation, and obtain rights to decrypt it or whatever.

This is not true of BTC.

BTC is most analogous to undenominated token money, fully dependent upon the token network (a third party), and usable as a money substitute. It cannot be used without the sanction of a third party, and does not persist without the third party. It is not redeemable, but is sellable. It most closely resembles token money, but it is not money proper.

Money must :
1) have a physical unit (a number, weight, or volume) so that it provides commensurability, and serve to function as a unit of account. in other words, goods must be expressed and expressible as units. This unitary number must be stable enough to use for the purpose of pricing. Otherwise it cannot not even function as a money substitute.
2) And it must persist. Existence is persistence. Only persistence satisfies the criteria of a store of value. It must persist in the absence of any external authority, or it is not an independent store of value.
3) It must serve as a medium of exchange between two parties without a proxy. If it requires a third party is is a fiduciary media. Fiduciary media can be redeemable or not. A note is redeemable, and a share of stock is not. It must be sold.

I haven’t compared BTC to credit money yet. Credit money consists largely of a vast network of notes, that at various stages can be converted into fiat money, and then into money proper.

a) a stock (now)
b) a non-denominated token money (future)
c) a money substitute (far future)

The reason I don’t think it’s a pyramid scheme, is becuause the point of selling the shares of stock (BTC) is to provide incentives to finance the development of the network, at which piont the digital token money can serve as a money substitute.

The reason I want to encourage bitcoin is because it has business value and it promises a rare opportunity to decrease dependence upon the state and the banking system, and their vast system of rents.

d on’t want anyone to think I am other than an advocate of bitcoin. On the other hand I sort of have this job I do, and my job is to figure this shit out so to speak.

BTC isn’t money. But then, that doesn’t mean it isn’t BETTER THAN MONEY in many cases. Money proper, is not an ultimate good.
2 hours ago · Like · 1

Curt Doolittle He does a good job of making one point:
1) eliminates labor in almost all financial transactions. And therefore all the rents on money between the banks and the state. Bureaucrats, Bankers, Lawyers, Accountants lose their jobs.

I agree with all of this. But this just means that BTC are BETTER than fiat money, in that BTC prevents rents and free riding. But these are moral, social, and business reasons. Money is still money. BTC may be better than money, but it isn’t money.

The sweet spot for BTC is that it’s when it is mature and less volatile so that BTC prices can form.

(MORE )

I have careful of confirmation bias. It’s unscientific. skeptical empiricism. I’m not a marxist. I can’t do advocacy for the purpose of creating reality by chanting. I’m a scientist. I have to deal in correspondence with reality.

There are places where one pays for things with cattle, sheep, goats, pigs, chicken or corn. Bt that’s barter.

(MORE ADDITIONAL POST)

You can’t print more bitcoins arbitrarily (as far as I understand). Although, as I understand it, it may be possible to decrease the weight and intentionally inflate the rate of BTC production. I don’t know the protections against that.

You cannot inflate hard money. That is why it is a store of value. That is why backed paper money (notes) currency are a store of value. And why unbacked, fiat CURRENCY (a money substitute) is not a store of value. or rather, is a weaker store of value. Because the rate at which fiat currency can be inserted into the market is somewhat limited without extreme externalities being caused.

Rapid inflation is caused by printing of money by the state to pay workers with money it doesn’t have, not the existence of any money in the first place. Money doesn’t expand naturally. It is printed and intentionally expanded so that wheelbarrows account for it. Russia did it. Germany did it. And so does everyone else now.

So, no, hard money is not based upon faith. Currency (notes) are based on faith that the money is held in reserve, and the note is redeemable. Fiat currency is based on the faith that the government will in fact mandate its use, and that it will not arbitrarily inflate the currency and destroy it’s ability to function as a store of value. Commercial notes are based upon the faith that the debtor will be capable of paying, and the notes redeemable. Shares are based upon faith that the company will continue to maintain a stable income such that the stock value will appreciate because demand will increase. Token money is based upon faith in the commercial network’s persistence and the demand for the use of that network.

What we get with BTC token money, is a discount on transaction costs, and a discount on rent seeking and free riding by third parties, who are eliminated from the process by digital media. Escrow is perhaps the best function that eliminates expensive third parties and legal fees.

Instead, what occurs is that the BTC network accumulates an inventory of unused BTC’s as a sort of store of wealth, and the money that once went to third parties stays in inventory instead.

I am not sure whether this was all in the design or whether it is a consequence of it. But it’s a genius of incentives management really. Everyone has incentives to make it all work. It’s wonderful.

I’m all for criticizing and analyzing but I’ think we know what the problems with BTC are, and that most of them should be solved,and paid for, by early entrants. And at the end, if they are successful, we will have a very nice utility that provides greater benefit to the bottom of society than the existing system does to the top.

( EDIT )

1) RE:”Certainly, it meets the colloquial definition which is simply “medium of exchange”. “

The colloquial definition is “a store of value, a unit of account, and a medium of exchange”.
The necessary property of money is that it possess those three values in order to form prices, since prices are necessary for economic calculation, coordination, and incentives in a division of knowledge and labor. A goat is still a medium of exchange in much of africa. A goat does not meet the criteria of money. That is merely barter. The reason is that goats are not marginally divisible, nor are they universally desirable. Money must be both.

2) RE: MISES: ” arguments of considerable weight may be urged in favor of including all money substitutes without exception in the single concept of money. . . . Whether this is the most advisable course to pursue, whether perhaps some other procedure might not lead to a better understanding of our subject matter, must be left to the judgment of the reader.”

Since the reason to distinguish between monetary products is to prevent fraud, then the properties of different products are MORALLY REQUIRED and under the common law, legally required, and a violation of property rights and the NAP under fraud. I do not need to guarantee that an ounce of a precious metal is anything other than an ounce of whatever metal. I must increase my guarantees.

If you wish to call something money in oder to give it greater market legitimacy then I that is an act of loading : fraud. The test of whether you are committing fraud or not, is simply whether you are willing to let BTC stand on its actual properties, benefits and risks, or whether you must load BTC with the false attribute of ‘money’ in order to do so.

BTC is not a store of value, any more than a stock is. If you can list all the possible properties of a stock, and all the possible properties of money, then you will do what we do with any product comparison. That comparison will demonstrate that BTC is not a store of value, and that it is dependent on a third party,yet the third party cannot be forced to redeem it.

Again. If we call BTC money proper, rather than a money substitute, that is fraud. If BTC cannot survive on its own, and must be falsely labeled to survive in the market, then it is fraudulent marketing.

This is actually the criticism of BTC. I do not understand why calling it a money substitute, that in many ways is superior to other money substitutes because it has lower transaction costs, is not an adequate way of marketing it.

The fact that there is so much confusion over BTC is precisely because of this misrepresentation of BTC as money. It is not money. It is a money substitute. BTC are infinitely divisible shares of token money, that discount transaction costs. The various side effects of these infinitely divisible shares of token money are wonderful, in that they disempower the state, and the financial system, that is used as a supplement to law and religion as a means of controlling us. I like that.

But BTC are not money. Right now they are only token money. At some point they may be viable for their retention of PURCHASING POWER (store of value). At that point they will be a money substitute. But they are not yet. They are token money with an ambition to function as a money substitute.

(MORE)
It has nothing to do with the future, nothing to do with technology. It has everything to do with being a store of value, a medium of exchange and a unit of account, that facilitates intertemporal coordination across various structures of production via the pricing system, and which is independent of manipulation and therefor the source of fraud and distortion in the pricing system that is required for human cooperation.

 

Andy Curzon, intellectual, friend and hero, has organized a PFS Conference next month in London at the Hilton.

Yours truly will speak twice. First on the origins and causes of morality and the moral bias toward liberty, and second on the reformation of libertarian ethics to support liberty in the high trust society.

These two presentations will briefly address the first two thirds of Propertarianism: the reasons for the failure of libertarianism to reach mainstream appeal, and the reduction of all morals and rights to statements of property.

I do not know the current state of registration but I believe there are still some spaces available.

Speakers

    Peter Brimelow, ‘Electing a New People in America and England’
    Gerard Casey, ‘Law in Disorder’
    Curt Doolittle,  ’The Causes of Morality and Western Liberty’ and ‘The Ethics of Property in the High Trust Society’
    Craig Drake, ‘Why Insider Trading Can Be Good for Market Outcomes’
    Andy Duncan, ‘The Necessary Evolution and the Evangelistic Importance of the Anti-Intellectual Intellectuals’  
    Sean Gabb , ‘Europe and the New British Constitution’
    Jan Lester, ‘Intellectual Property: ‘Non-Aggressive’ Meme-Propertarianism’
    Richard Lynn, ‘The Dysgenic Problem of the European Peoples’
    Sebastian Ortiz : ‘The Anti-Science of Moral Scepticism’
    Mateusz Machaj, ‘The Missing Heroes of Economics’
    James G. Rickards , ‘Culture, Complexity and Capital Markets’
    Roman Skaskiw, ‘Introduction to Bitcoins’
    Martin van Creveld, ‘The Rise and Decline of the State’

If you want more information see the PFS London Agenda v2

 

 

(However)
Primitive matrilineality (endogamous)
Community Family (endogamous)
Patriarchal Community Family (exogamous)
Authoritarian Family
Egalitarian Nuclear Family (~catholic)
Absolute Nuclear Family (endogamous) (Anglo Saxon)
Post-Marital Individual Family (endogamous) (Feminism)

The Anglo Saxon Absolute Nuclear Family
- no precise inheritance rules, frequent use of wills;
- no cohabitation of married children with their parents;
- no marriage between the children of brothers.

“…think of England as being like this for at least 750 years. We live in small families. We buy and sell houses. … Our parents expect us to leave home for paid work …You try to save up some money from your wages so that you can afford to get married. … You can choose your spouse … It takes a long time to build up some savings from your work and find the right person with whom to settle down, so marriage comes quite lately, possibly in your late twenties.

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