1) Attack on diversity and equality as a means of preserving our ability to use historical deliberative classical liberal institutions

2) Formulation of alternative institutions that make possible the voluntary cooperation between diverse and unequal people.

THE RIGHT IS DOING THE FIRST.

I (as a libertarian) AM DOING THE SECOND.

THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT IS NOT REACTIONARY – ITS RADICAL.

 

 

(revised and expanded)

It’s pretty hard to beat non-aggression as an epistemic test. It’s the only intersubjectively verifiable test. We can’t really know anything else for certain. We can very easily see violence and theft.

But, does that inability to know much else for certain, stop us from developing ETHICAL and MORAL rules?

LETS LOOK AT ETHICS: The spectrum of Manners, Ethics and Morals.

1) Manners are immediately visible. Just like aggression.

2) Ethics are not immediately visible and intersubjectively verifiable. Ethical rules are principles that compensate for the asymmetry of information of both parties. Probability of adherence to ethical rules that compensate for asymmetry of information, is signaled with manners and a contractual property of ALL exchanges.

3) Morals are not anywhere visible, but are a means of preventing privatization of the commons – involuntary transfer from others. Some are very obvious (having a child our of wedlock and then asking the community to support you), and some are less obvious (promoting a bad idea by arts, writing, speech, or performance: (most advertising).

So, the failure to establish means of regulating ethics and morals, other than the NAP, is simply a license for unethical and moral action in any and all exchanges. Rothbard’s argument is that the market is sufficient to constrain ethical and moral behavior. But the EVIDENCE is that this isn’t true. It’s VIOLENCE that constrains it. And violence is constrained by the number of people who can be allied to either support unethical and immoral actions, or to support ethical and moral actions. The rothbardian answer to this problem is to resort to courts. But if NAP alone is the ethical and moral rule in exchanges, then, as Rothbard argues in For a New Liberty, there is no means of court resolution of fraud and immorality: theft by other than visible means.

In other words, rothbard gives us the low trust society, and aristocracy, with a higher constraint than NAP, gives us the high trust society. Rothbard’s ethics are ‘what you can get away with in an exchange, called voluntary, but asymmetrical in knowledge.’ Aristocracy gave us ‘what you can get in a voluntary exchange under warranty that knowledge is symmetric’.

This is why rothbardian ethics are intolerable to western christians. Demonstrably, at least our version of human beings, find that insufficient.

Under aristocratic ethics, ALL involuntary transfer is forbidden EXCEPT that which takes place in the market for productive goods and services, fully under warrantee of symmetry of knowledge. And the further difference is, that fraud by asymmetry (omission) is not just a theft from by one party from another, but a theft from ALL PEOPLE who constantly forgo opportunities for fraud by omission – and in doing so create the HIGH TRUST SOCIETY.

In other words, theft or violence (aggression) is an attack on all the institution of property. Property which has been paid for by constantly paying the high cost of respecting others’ monopoly of control. A control over that which they settled, made or obtained in exchange. An attack on any property then, is an attack on, and theft from all SHAREHOLDERS IN THE INSTITUTION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS. As such all men who respect property rights, as shareholders in paying for that institution, are being stolen from, and as such have standing to enforce, by violence, any offense of property rights by any person, at any time.

In most human societies, the “OTHERS” are biological extensions of the family. In yet others, adherents to the religion. But under aristocracy the ‘in-group’ members are those who reciprocally grant and defend property rights regardless of family membership, and the “OTHERS” are those who do NOT reciprocally grant property rights, and defend them.

THAT IS THE MEANING OF ARISTOCRACY: a shareholder in the corporation whose assets are private property rights, and the obligation and right to prosecute and demand restitution on the part of either himself OR THE CORPORATION of ALL members of the contract of private property.

As such, the contributors to property rights in fact, are owners of the economically productive society, its norms and institutions, and those those that do not equally take responsibility for property rights are the ‘others': non-family members.

Under aristocratic egalitarianism, the high trust WITHIN the genetic FAMILY is extended to the CORPORATE family of fellow shareholders. Thus the family is contractual rather than genetic. that is how the ‘high trust society’ unique to northern europeans was made possible.

The title “SIR” meant you had earned the right to carry weapons and enforce property rights. The “right to carry arms’ is identical to ‘the right to private property’. These two are ideas are inseparable. The source of property rights is the organized use of violence to create them.

The source of property rights is not some, mystical grant of god or nature, or some necessary natural right – since private property is rare if not unique in the world, it cannot be ‘natural’. In fact, private property is UNNATURAL, which is why it is so IMPORTANT. Without it we cannot form the incentives nor perform the calculation necessary to crate a vast division of knowledge an labor in real time. Aristocracy is the system of social order where by we enter a voluntary contract to use violence to institute, and maintain, private property rights. And we struggle to enfranchise as many people in this UNNATURAL system as possible, so that we have the strength of numbers. This system, private property, is so effective, and has such an affect on status, and the ability to reproduce, that everyone wants to join the societies that have it.

The first problem is, (a) THAT THEY WANT IT FOR FREE. And (b) once property rights are a norm, they feel it’s free, because they don’t have to EARN IT any longer with visible payments, only invisible payment (constraints). So the contract isn’t visible and is abused and taken for granted.

As such to maintain property rights requires that we perform some ACT of maturity and COGNIZANCE in order to obtain them.

Cities in the west were not organically created markets, but deliberate islands of PROPERTY RIGHTS crated by the organized application of violence by the nobility. The island of property rights was crafted out of a land populated by free riders who actively SUPPRESSED the desire of any individual to concentrate capital behind his ideas or wants rather than that of the free riders and rent seekers around him.

Which is why Rothbard had to resort to CRUSOE’S ISLAND. On that island, the ocean forms the walls of the ghetto, beyond which is the aristocratic society. Crusoe’s island is one of the reasons libertarianism has failed to gain adoption. The western ethic is to “Make all men aristocrats”. That is what ‘egalitarian aristocracy’ means. That the fools in the enlightenment though men DESIRED to be aristocrats was a catastrophic error. But the fact that MANY do, is enough to form a high trust society.

As such, NAP, is “peasant” or “ghetto”, or “gypsy trader” morality. The morality of people who cannot ally to hold land, and develop fixed capital, heavy production systems (metals) and formal institutions of dispute resolution. It not liberty, but the return to partial barbarism.

Rothbard gave us the ethics of the traveling merchant, the ghetto, and organized crime. Aristocracy gave us the ethics of the extended family warriors, farmers and shopkeepers – the high trust society. The only people to created liberty as a formal and informal institution were aristocrats.

Just how it is.

 

(interesting)

“Ratio-Scientific vs Ratio-Moral Argument”

Historically, Political speech has been structured morally:
I) as an expression of positive or negative reaction (IRRATIONAL SELF)
II) as an appeal or pleading (RATIONAL BETWEEN INDIVIDUALS)
III) as a polemic or criticism (RATIONAL AND ARATIONAL TO AN AUDIENCE)

To express one’s feelings or reactions without the structure of reason, is not a debate. It’s just sentimental expression. It’s an opinion poll but not an argument. It’s an expressed reaction without a request for opinion. But it’s not an argument.

To enter into debate, one forgoes one’s right of violence. Theoretically in pursuit of the truth, for mutual benefit. That is the purpose of a debate. (This fact, that gets to the problem of why argumentation is correct for deductive purposes but incorrect for causal purposes).

To publish one’s arguments in a political context, one conducts oratory, not debate. Oratory falls into the following structural categories:

(Forms of Oratory: or ‘publication’)

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

(For more, see my guide on DISCOURSE: IRRATIONAL (expression) vs RATIONAL (debate) vs ORATORY (publication) at http://www.propertarianism.com/tools-and-techniques-for-political-debate/a-list-of-terms-for-use-in-evaluating-political-debate/#II )

LIBERTARIANISM IS STRUCTURED RHETORICALLY, and libertarian ethics are structured as an APOLOGIA by Rothbard.

Ratio-scientific argument from analytical philosophy, is either true or false, but it is not an appeal for consent. That is non-logical. Contract is consensual, but truth is independent of consent.
RATIO SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT IS ABSENT RESPECT FOR CONVENTION.

The purpose of the scientific method is to CORRECT our sense, perception, memory, calculation, and narrative (causal relations), habits, norms, traditions, myths and metaphysical assumptions about the structure of reality. Otherwise the discipline of science would not be necessary.

The purpose of MORAL speech in the form of RHETORIC and APOLOGIA, is to APPEAL to norms embedded in memory, and narrative, in order to obtain consent.

The purpose of RATIO SCIENTIFIC argument is to describe a set of causal relations that produce an outcome. In other words: a formula or recipe. The formula or recipe either works or it doesn’t. But it’s not a matter of consent, or preference. It’s just true or false.

One can say that the formula isn’t logically sufficient or solid. But one cannot prefer or object to the conclusion.

One doesn’t write these things as appeal, one writes these as positives statements that are open to TESTING, not as appeals that are written to obtain CONSENT.

Whether one agrees or not with them must be a matter of the argument, not wither one likes or dislikes it. Formulae and Recipes produce what they do. One can like the product or not, but the formula or recipe works, then it just does.

I would like it very much if it was possible to convince people to adopt libertarian ethics and a libertarian morality. As it is currently structured it is not rational to think so. I am not trying to persuade people to adopt libertarianism. I am trying to demonstrate that if one desires LIBERTY, then one must ACT in such fashion that human beings will produce it. That is not a moral question. It is not a rhetorical question. It is a SCIENTIFIC QUESTION. Either people WILL or WILL NOT, when subject to incentives A, produce behavior B.

THE ARGUMENT FOR THE STRUCTURE OF ETHICS AND MORALS

The argument that demonstrably, we ALL act in our reproductive interests, within the structure of production, structure of reproduction, and structure of property rights which we call ‘norms’, and that ALL our discourse is little more than JUSTIFICATIONARY attempts at resisting against, cooperating with, or thieving from one another within the boundaries of those productive, reproductive, and normative constraints. That is an argument that is extremely difficult to prove.

Nothing else is actually logical.

If we want liberty then, we must create institutional incentives for liberty.

Asking people to ‘believe’ in libertarianism or, marxism is equally ridiculous.

 

 

PART 1: AWARENESS, INFLUENCE, INCENTIVE AND COERCION

SPECTRUM OF INFLUENCE
(a) Ignorance – none
(b) Awareness – speech
(c) Influence – speech
(d) Incentive – exchange
(e) Coercion – violence
(f) Enslavement – perpetual violence

INCENTIVES
Incentives are factors that motivate and influence the actions of individuals. Something that an influencer can use to provide a motive for a person to choose a particular course of action.

Organized cooperative activities in a social setting — such as cooperation for the purpose of economic production — depends upon each of the participants having some sort of incentive to behave in the required cooperative fashion.

Different societies (and even different organizations within the same society) vary considerably in the nature of the incentive systems upon which they characteristically rely to organize their common projects. — from Johnson (with edits)

I. PERSONAL CATEGORIES OF INCENTIVES (Johnson)
——————————————–
Incentives may be classified according to a number of different schemes, but one of the more useful classifications subdivides incentives into three general types: MORAL INCENTIVES, COERCIVE INCENTIVES and REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVES.

A person has a COERCIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when it has been made known to him that failure to do so will result in some form of physical aggression being directed at him by other members of the collectivity in the form of inflicting pain or physical harm on him or his loved ones, depriving him of his freedom of movement, or perhaps confiscating or destroying his treasured possessions.

A person has a MORAL INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way when he has been taught to believe that it is the “right” or “proper” or “admirable” thing to do. If he behaves as others expect him to, he may expect the approval or even the admiration of the other members of the collectivity and enjoy an enhanced sense of acceptance or self-esteem. If he behaves improperly, he may expect verbal expressions of condemnation, scorn, ridicule or even ostracism from the collectivity, and he may experience unpleasant feelings of guilt, shame or self-condemnation.

A person has a REMUNERATIVE INCENTIVE to behave in a particular way if it has been made known to him that doing so will result in some form of material reward he will not otherwise receive. If he behaves as desired, he will receive some specified amount of a valuable good or service (or money with which he can purchase whatever he wishes) in exchange.

All known societies employ all three sorts of incentives to at least some degree in order to evoke from its members the necessary degree of cooperation for the society to survive and flourish. However, different societies differ radically in the relative proportions of these different kinds of incentives used within their characteristic mix of incentives.

II. POLITICAL: THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES (Doolittle)
————————————————-
The Three Coercive Technologies.

1) FORCE:
Tool: Physical Coercion
Benefit: Avoidance Benefit
Strategic use: Rapid but expensive.
“Seize opportunities quickly with a concentrated effort.”

2) WORDS:
Tool: Verbal, Moral Coercion
Benefit: Ostracization/Inclusion, and Insurance benefit
Strategic Use: slow, but inexpensive.
“Wait for opportunity by accumulating consensus.”

3) EXCHANGE: Remunerative Coercion With Material Benefit –
Strategic use: efficient in cost and time, only if you have the resources.

III. STRATEGIC: POWER / THREE TYPES OF POWER
—————————————–
Power is defined as possessing any of the various means by which to influence the probability of outcomes in a group or polity using one of THE THREE COERCIVE TECHNOLOGIES.

Power is the ability to Influence, Coerce or Compel individuals or groups to act more according to one’s wishes than they would without the use of influence, coercion or compelling.

There are only three forms of power possible:

1) Populist Power (Religion, Entertainment, Public Intellectuals)

vs

2) Procedural Power: Political, Judicial, and Military Power (Soldiers, Judges and Politicians)

vs

3) Economic Power (people with wealth either earned or gained through tax appropriation).

It is possible and often preferable to combine all three forms of power in order to coerce people most effectively. Conversely, it is possible and preferable to create an institutional framework in politics that restricts the ability to combine different forms of power in an effort to constrain power.

 

 

I mean, why does that make sense? If the problem is, that each of us wants different distribution of property rights, then why cant we form organizations with different property rights? It’s not like courts don’t adjudicate by property rights anyway. They have to. Our disputes are over behavior in public, our ability to insulate ourselves from certain kinds of public behavior, and to choose to invest in family and relations, or individuals and the commons.

Surely interpersonal disputes over property, and insurance disputes over our claims on one another through our government are not required to be the same.

The only reason to have a single government, is so that you can oppress and steal. Since it’s not possible to cooperate without personal property rights, and the entire world has finally adopted that position, the question is only what is done with the proceeds of labor and exchange. How much do we get to keep? What is our ‘FEE’ for insurance by our government.

But there isn’t really any reason you can’t join your own government, when government is not much more than an insurance company.

The only reason for any monopoly is extort from people. That’s what monopolies do. Public OR private.

 

(draft)(sketch)(interesting idea) (REVISED)

AGAINST ‘RALLYING’ and ‘SHAMING’.

The anti-gun emotional-reaction by women is not rational or empirical, but instinctual. . The female strategy for controlling her reproduction is to rally others to her defense. A man with a weapon both intimidates her, and reduces the value of ‘others’. Any empirical argument she makes is justificationary, not scientific.

Our moral intuitions are not rational. Some women are so solipsistic that they see a rapist behind every T-shirt and necktie. They have it backwards of course, as the evidence shows.

The problem for women is that they have as hard a time suppressing their irrational emotions as we males have suppressing our physicality. There are higher consequences for our failure to suppress physicality, and we assumed that there are lower consequences for failure of women to suppress rallying. But we were WRONG.

We have retained constraints on male physicality, and abandoned constraints on female solipsism and emotional control over rallying us via emotion. We have stopped ‘punishing women’ for improper rallying, but retained the punishment of men for improper physicality.

This has allowed women to immorally use ‘rallying’ the same way men rally crowds with violence. But while violence may be destructive to property, women’s solipsistic uncontrolled emotions empower the minority of males to use the violence of the state, and to increase the extraction of rents and increase their free riding by coddling women.

Women would have themselves feel free to rally. But we men unfree to resist rallying. Rallying in the form of the state.

We evolved to take women seriously, in the sense that they are troubled by something we feel the need to fix it. But there are many things that they are not to be taken seriously about. There are many things that they should be actively suppressed about rallying for, out of their instinctual, visceral reactions rather than rational reactions.

And this is one of them. Freedom, liberty, and safety, and the equality and demand for reason that comes from the use of arms, is to important to tolerate women’s inappropriate rallying.

We must remember that women’s rallying IS A WEAPON. It evolved AS A WEAPON. It is possibly the cause for the origin of SPEECH: rallying.

But female rallying is violence against us and it is a weapon, just as carrying a weapon is defense against RALLYING.

Women marry the state and rally statists and fools.

It is an arms race.

And we cannot let them win.

SHAMING Is an act of theft. RALLYING is an act of aggression. Never tolerate either from women. REQUIRE REASON not RALLYING or SHAMING.

 

 

The enlightenment mythos was almost as damaging was christianity. The greatest tragedy in human history may have been the christianization of Europe. The empirical side of the enlightenment was desperately needed to escape jewish mysticism that held us in ignorance for a millennia. Equality under the law, was important for the spread of commerce.

But, just as moving people from christianity’s mysticism via Darwin was, let’s say … incomplete, it is very hard to move people from equality of property rights, equality under the law, and the equality of family interests, to what the socialists accomplished, which was equality of opportunity, material equality, inequality under the law, eradication of the common law by legislative law, and the destruction of the nuclear and absolute nuclear family in pursuit of ‘individualism’.

We have a very hard time overturning this mythos. This mythos is even rampant in libertarianism. Libertarians are just as enamored of the fallacy of equality as are socialists. Libertarians want to retain meritocracy, sure. But most of us assume the same naive belief that if others ‘only understood’ they would adopt our system of values.

But that’s just demonstrably false, both logically, praxeologically, and empirically. The majority of the world detests property rights and individualism.

 

It isn’t’ just that the majority cannot join the aristocracy, and earn, use and keep property rights. It is that they do not desire to earn, use and keep property rights. People want the benefits of aristocracy but not the effort. They want to be serfs. They want to be taken care of. They don’t want to bear risks. They don’t want to compete, And they aren’t able to. And they demonstrate it at every opportunity.

Having empirically proven that the enlightenment effort to bring all of mankind into the aristocracy, has been a catastrophic failure, and at present is threatening western civilization; the question is then, whether we abandon the enlightenment goal of an ‘aristocracy of everybody’, and demand property rights by force of arms once again, as we previously civilized the barbarians of the world, or whether we let ourselves, our civilization and aristocracy die.

Not with a roar of triumph. Not with a whimper. But with silent cowardice.

 

 

I have been struggling with this idea for a while: that, for some reason, of the empirical fields, including math, physics, engineering, computer science, and economics (into which I include the social sciences), it appears that platonism seems to originate in philosophical spiritualism, gain legitimacy in mathematics and roll downhill until it is cleansed by computer scientists and engineers.

What’s interesting to me, is that it just seems, in all the fields, that platonism is the definition of most philosophy, so pervasive in math, to the point of being endemic and inescapable and impervious to correction, even if it doesn’t need to be.

…Human Beings As They Dream…
…………..Philosophy…………………….
………………Logic…………………………
……………–Math–……………………..
……..Physical…….Behavioral………….
..(constant vs inconstant relations)…
…….Physics………Economics………….
………….(observation)…………………..
Engineering—Computer Science…..
………….(interaction)…………………….
…Human Beings As They Really Act..

It’s just strange that the only empirical people you seem to be able to trust are people who work with machines. ‘Cause they can tell the difference between an abstract name for something and the operational process for bringing it into being. Computer scientists never make this mistake. Mathematicians do all the time, and actually defend what they do not themselves understand.

I have heard a lot of criticism of engineers and computer scientists over the past few decades and I’ve just found that sure, in any discipline there are idiots. There are ‘scientistic’ physicists too, and ‘financial economists’. But the difference between fields is the use of operational language, and operational language isn’t platonic.

That’s what makes ‘science’ into ‘science’.
– OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE = HUMAN ACTION.
Human action that is open to sympathetic testing – experience.
Praxeology was backwards.
You can sympathetically test something.
You cant deduce much from that tho.

 

One’s moral priorities are not a choice, but a justification that has been reduced to an intuition. They must be – reason would be too expensive and too unpredictable for the formation of norms. And those intuitions, which we are in the process of confirming, are both genetically and familially determined. And the structure of the family is determined by the structure of economic production on one hand, and the spectrum of cousin marriage from taboo to expectation, on the other.

->Genetics, Family structure, Production Outbreeding, Norms, Mythology, and Pedagogy.

In fact, the only reason we see migration in moral biases is so that individuals can demonstrate wealth, opportunity, and freedom from mercantile and manorial ethics as a form of conspicuous consumption and therefore as a status and mating signal.

The origins of our universalism are a side effect of the success of the church in prohibiting cousin marriage and granting property rights to women as a means of breaking up the large landholding families so that the church could more easily and cheaply buy land.

America was homogenous in indoctrinating everyone into the Absolute Nuclear Family because immigration displaced extended family networks and the economy in the states prohibited prior loyalties because of available growth. Black americans had an even higher rate of marriage than whites.

But the postmodern and feminist programs have undermined the absolute nuclear family using both academia, public intellectuals, policy, and law; because of the introduction of female voters into the work place, and voting pools gave each group new constituent – customers.

And it has consistently been the voting pattern of women to expand the welfare state, remove the need for marriage before reproduction, and remove the punitive economic and social norms for single motherhood. At this point voting is determined by single women. And we will soon reach the point where 40% or more of children are born to single mothers, who must singularly support a household, and as such will be poorer than married people with two incomes who support a household.

And that is what we see in voting patterns. White married women vote right to keep their family and income. Unmarried and single women and minorities (non-whites, since minority status is rapidly approaching in younger demographics), vote to seek rents and free-riding.

I work on the other side of the spectrum from the status-seeking, conspicuously consumptive, moral justification of redistribution as a replacement for marriage. My objective is the preservation of the high trust society. But the high trust society is a product of the absolute nuclear family as the dominant moral influence in American culture. And what we are seeing, is, in 50 years, it’s rapid decline, and the economic polarization, and moral polarization, of the country along those moral lines.

We cannot keep the high trust society, and the positive benefits that come from it, without the ANF and the moral code that accompanies it. Or, there is no evidence that such a thing is possible.

But, it appears, that at least for a rapidly increasing number of women, this circumstance is superior to the corporation by which we concentrate capital: marriage.

Monogamy and paternalism, as Engels reminded us, were innovations that were the result of the development of property during agrarianism and pastoralism.

But if women can marry the state, rather than a man, they can restore the tribal order, and bear children while placing the burden of their upkeep on the tribe (state).

And that appears to be both normal and preferential.

So I think this is a more likely cause of today’s circumstance than leftover anger at the ‘war of northern aggression’, the purpose of which was to prevent the agrarian, export-oriented south from using slavery in the new territory to form a political block, that could encircle the import-oriented north.

Reproduction and status are an economy.
Norms are an economy.
Production is an economy.
And moral discourse is verbal warfare over which sector will win which benefits.

Cheers

 

1450335_10152033898062264_1997839827_n 996064_10152033897577264_2079412274_n 1465242_10152033898302264_303625332_n 1470159_10152033898727264_447792701_n 1417809_10152033898767264_1043102633_o 1462907_10152033947617264_467185008_n 1451367_10152033947242264_1319608002_n

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