There is nothing new about that though. (And Walter Block is wrong well.) Although I agree with Caplan’s work on education and voting, his position on immigration is ideological, not empirical or rational, and it is decidedly not ethically sound.

The only test of any ethical statement is whether all transfers caused by any act, are voluntary transfers – including involuntary transfers of goods, actions and opportunity, and including both direct involuntary transfers by externality, asymmetry of knowledge, fraud, theft or violence (in that order), and including reverse involuntary transfers caused by impediment, free-riding, rent seeking, or privatization (in that order). There is no other test of any ethical statement. There isn’t. Period.

Libertarian ‘self ownership’ is not an ethical statement. It is an epistemic statement, or it is a demand, or it is an appeal, but it is not an ethical statement. If any statement claims to be moral, or ethical, while at the same time, providing an excuse to conduct involuntary transfer via externality or asymmetry of knowledge, it is simply a RUSE – an act of fraud. (If you are even an amateur libertarian philosopher, then you are welcome to attempt to circumvent that argument. But you won’t be able to.)

In fact, “competition” itself, as we use the term, is the normative sanction of external involuntary transfer by an artificial, counter-intuitive, set of rules we call the market, consisting of voluntary transfer of goods and services, by fully informed consensual exchange, and insured as fully informed and consensual by warranty, at the cost of opportunity and investment to other producers of similar goods, in an effort to coerce producers to innovate in their use of resources, to produce goods for all at lower price, or higher quality, in an effort to produce goods and services at the lowest cost and highest quality for all consumers participating in that set of normative rules that comprise that market, and which we in turn call ‘a society’.

REGARDING: http://www.cato-unbound.org/2013/03/19/bryan-caplan/the-rights-of-the-worlds-poor-a-reply-to-hassoun/

The ‘libertarian’ free trade in labor would be true if and only if there were no external costs to that labor. In other words, immigration is incompatible with redistribution. And distribution is warranted by conformity to norms. Where norms represent property rights. And therefore immigration is an act of theft by capitalists and immigrants from the middle and working classes.

Certainly you would not argue that free trade in nuclear materials and nuclear waste would be a ‘good thing’? Or free trade in communicable diseases? Nuclear energy produces a temporal good, but has many negative external and largely inter-temporal consequences for the environment. Communicable diseases help provide incentives for creating medical treatments, and help us maintain relative immunity from the evolution of bacteria and viruses. But, according to Caplan and Libertarians, these externalities are not part of any equation we use to measure these things?

    a) the economic hazard created by Perverse Incentives – attracting those with the lowest ability, who are productive for the shortest time, while carrying their benefits at the highest long term cost.
    b) loss labor, knowledge, capital, research, technology, to other groups.
    c) The demonstrated preference of groups to seek access to political power in democratic systems in order to advance member’s social status by legal rather than market means.

Institutionally, Caplan would have to prove that the waves of Catholic and Jewish immigrants and their attacks on the constitution, rather than adapting culturally by market forces, have had no long term negative impact on the society – despite without those attacks we can empirically demonstrate that we would not have entered the ‘great society’ problem. Or that immigration of the third world has not further exacerbated these redistributive trends, away from the intertemporal savings and lending model of society which constrains risk and fragility, to the intertemporal redistribution model that encourages risk and fragility.

We can DEMONSTRATE EMPIRICALLY that waves of immigrants have provided short term economic benefit for long term erosion of the property rights, homogeneity of interest, and high trust society that perpetuates those property rights as norms.

We can DEMONSTRATE EMPIRICALLY that the wave of german immigrants both after the 1870’s economic crash in Europe and after the world wars, had a net positive effect on the institutions and economy of the united states, by tracing their technological contributions.

Ethically, caplan would have to DEMONSTRATE that immigration enforces no uncompensated involuntary transfers. I can certainly demonstrate that open immigration forces involuntary transfers – ie: is theft. the only means of avoiding that process, is to allow individuals to immigrate under sponsorship, and to pay for insurance against the immigrant and his descendants from becoming the recipient of involuntary transfers from others. There is no other way to achieve it.

This suite of errors is caused by the misperception that formal institutions rather than informal institutions, are the source of the high trust society, universalism, and individual property rights. However, we can easily demonstrate that just the opposite is true: a society without these norms, and where those norms are enforced by education and formal institutions, most specifically, the rule of law, and where political action is prohibited, forcing all competition into the market.

We all bring our heritage with us. Our norms. Our values. Our metaphysics. They are not chosen rationally. They are inherited as habits from our families. Is it any wonder, any coincidence that Rothbard, Block and Caplan arem Jewish (diasporic perpetual immigrants), Hans Hoppe is German (landed tribal nationalists), and I’m an English-American (institutional imperialist)? It isn’t a mystery. We cannot escape our heritages, because within those cultural norms, assumptions and values, and even possibly, to some degree, in our genes, we hold assumptions about the natural order of man.

The only way to judge those Norms, values, and metaphysics is to judge the civilizations that they produced where they were employed. We know that third world, catholic, and jewish institutions all failed to produce the universal high trust society. We know that we cannot create protestant germanic institutions outside of protestant germanic countries. Because those countries are not filled with protestant germanic norms. And those norms, and the metaphysical value judgements that they reproduce and reinforce,

It was a very different thing a century ago, when our ancestors warned us about this future ‘suicide of the west’. There wasn’t any evidence that they would be right. Now that we have the evidence, the argument is not hypothetical.

Our high trust society and the high trust economy will end, along with the political influence of its practitioners. Just like every other aristocratic european political system has ended. Because the high trust society, the nuclear family, universalism of the extended family, and rule of law are unnatural to man – man who seeks rents and involuntary transfers wherever he can find them in an perpetual effort to reduce the effort he must expend in order to gain or maintain a sufficient level of stimulation that we call ‘experiences’.

So, what is the economic cost of that consequence? What was the cost of creating the high trust society? What was the opportunity cost of creating it?

If the high trust society it is a one time event, impossible to evolve again, because of the impossibility of concordant circumstances, then the economic cost is infinite.

I hope that gets my point across. The cost is infinite.

And this difference, like all differences, is a difference in time preference and ‘population preference’ (as I have explained elsewhere.) But these preferences are not just tastes. They have meaning. That meaning ALWAYS favors a given population over a long time frame. Period.

 

Only humans can act.

1) Any description of a political concept, that is not articulated as action, is an attempt to obscure those actions. THis is the meaning of praxeology. It makes the involuntary transfers visible. If you cannot describe rights in praxeological terms, it’s because you are either unable to articulate thema s action, and therefore fail to understand them, or you are engaging self deception in order to justify your thefts, or you are engaging in the deception of others in order to justify your thefts.

2) Describing property as that which we obtain through voluntary exchange and homesteading, is an epistemic statement: it tells us only how we can KNOW something adheres to the contract for the institution of property, and therefore we have exclusive (a monopoly) of control over its use. It’s an epistemic statement. It still requires the contract in order for others to respect the property of yours. Implicit in any claim for several (individual, private) property, is that the grant is reciprocal. The fact that you don’t articulate this reciprocity is an accident or a contrivance. But if it is reciprocal than it is an act of exchange. It must be.

Propertarianism
Any attempt to state that rights are acquired other than by organized violence is an attempt to acquire them at a discount. In other words, it is an act of fraud. Any attempt at utilitarian justification then opens us to the utilitarianism of involuntary transfer, and undermines the entire libertarian argument that property rights are absolute.

3) It is entirely possible to state that you are not engaging in a reciprocal contract (an agreement) but in fact,t hat you are stating demands that you will back by violence. And this is, in fact, how the institution of property was created in the west, and eventually extended through enfranchisement to the militia, and then through political and tax enfranchisement to the middle class, and finally through vote-enfranchisement to the proletariat. (Who were advanced to consumers because of industrialization and capitalism.) Unfortunately, thinking that your violence is meaningful as an individual is an absurd proposition, since there is no evidence that individual violence can achieve anything, property included, without allies to enforce egalitarian property ownership by violence. The source of property is violence. But it is organized violence for the purpose of egalitarian (enfranchised) individual ownership of property.

4) the natura, instinctual, and genetic order of man is tribal – the ethics of the extended family. The west invented private property for a sequence of reasons that resulted in the high trust society that made our western exceptionalism possible.

But the rest of humanity still engages in racial, tribal and familialism. And the most primitive and sedentary cultures, on matrilineal familialism. It is instinctual. while alpha males desire to crate tribes, and strong tribes. Women instinctively desire both to constrain alphas in order to control mate selection, and desire to place responsibility for the feeding of their children on the tribe – not themselves. These are our competing genetic strategies and they play out in every aspect of life. With women enfranchised into the voting pool, and increasingly abandoning the artificial institution of the nuclear family, they are exercising their instincts to restore the primitive, pre-herding order of human society. This is what we see in western voting patterns. Not a change in the distribution of male philosophical predisposition toward political orders, but an increasing expression of the female reproductive strategy let loose from the agrarian constraint of the nuclear family.

5) Rothbard recreated the mystical jewish religion of the ghetto, ignoring in his example of both the ghetto and Crusoe’s island, that there is a walled fortress of soldiers around the ghetto, and the violence of the ocean around Crusoe’s island. These are convenient defices that obscure, like his property rights, that the source of property is not choice, not will, not a divine right, not a gift from a divinity, not an abstraction. The source of property is the application of organized violence to acquire and hold property rights, such that all who participate in the violence used to obtain and hold those rights, possess that right of sovereignty: property rights.

Any attempt to state that rights are acquired other than by organized violence is an attempt to acquire them at a discount. In other words, it is an act of fraud. Any attempt at utilitarian justification then opens us to the utilitarianism of involuntary transfer, and undermines the entire libertarian argument that property rights are absolute.

Rothbard did us a favor by inventing propertarianism. Even though it appears that he did not understand what he had done. But we must, absolutely must, free libertarianism from the ghetto, and return it to the aristocracy that created it. Property is not a belief. A moral code, a sentiment, or a feeling. It is an institution created by the organized application of violence. Because property CAN only be created by the organized application of violence.

Hoppe has succeeded in creating the institutions necessary for a homogenous polity. But he did not succeed in creating institutions necessary for a heterogeneous polity.

Hopefully I’ll succeed. Not quite sure yet. Time will tell.

 

Conservatives speak in emotionally loaded, allegorical, (and therefore archaic) language. That does not mean that the content of their beliefs or allegories is irrational, only that it is arational. But it does mean that they can’t articulate their ideas rationally. And worse, it means that their arguments, and their way of life are perpetually vulnerable to criticism.

It also means that conservatives cannot find practical solutions to problems that CAN be solved without violating the system of ethics and norms that creates the high trust society. They simply cannot understand their own ideas well enough to know where they apply, where they do not, and where alternative solutions can be found that accomplish a goal through preferred ends. This is the legitimate criticism of Conservatism: that conservative philosophers have, until we P came about, failed to find a solution to the problem of articulating conservatism.

Propertarianism
[Because their language is allegorical, Conservatism does not contain the causal density needed to articulate conservative ideas. And as such] … conservatives cannot find practical solutions to problems that CAN be solved without violating the system of ethics and norms that creates the high trust society.

People who follow my work know that this is precisely the problem I’m trying to solve: to articulate Conservatism (Anglo Aristocratic Egalitarianism) in rational terms. Which means Propertarian terms. Because only Propertarianism provides a rational means of discussing political systems and institutions. I have now spent a significant portion of my adult life on this problem and I finally understand how absolutely difficult that problem was to solve.

As an example, I’ll use Krugman’s Straw Man Of The Day to illustrate why its hard for conservatives to defend themselves, by attacking a simple, usual meaningless jibe – but one that conservatives can’t easily defend against.

Conservatives and Sewers
I see that some commenters on my traffic externalities post are speculating what Republicans would say about sewers if they didn’t already exist. Well, we don’t know about Republicans, but we do know what The Economist said, in 1848, about proposals for a London sewer system:

Suffering and evil are nature’s admonitions; they cannot be got rid of; and the impatient efforts of benevolence to banish them from the world by legislation, before benevolence has learned their object and their end, have always been more productive of evil than good.
Sewers are socialism!

It wasn’t until the Great Stink made the Houses of Parliament uninhabitable that the sewer system was created.

Now, we’re going to acknowledge that as usual, a conservative protestant Englishman doesn’t understand his own traditions well enough to articulate them. He can sense that something is wrong, with the circumstance, but not articulate what that is, nor how to find an alternative solution to the problem. And that’s understandable. I’m not sure without both Bastiat and Hayek, that we would understand them either. Without Rothbard and Hoppe, I wouldn’t know how to find solutions. However, that doesn’t mean that conservatives and libertarians can’t intuit that ‘something is wrong here’, even if they cannot articulate it.

So, aside from the fact that Dr Krugman is a political propagandist, lets look at his logic, and articulate the conservative criticism of it:

1) It doesn’t follow that a one-time expense, followed by fees for usage is the same as redistribution that creates dependencies. Fees require action and therefore ‘ownership’ in the management of the commons, the redistribution does not require action. The free-rider problem is different from the progressive-fees problem. Free riding is a negative signal that says free riding is a ‘right’, while progressive fees illustrate that this is not a ‘right’, but a ‘charity’. This sends ‘truthful’ signals to both parties. And truthful signals are necessary to retain the universal cultural prohibition on involuntary transfers.

2) It doesn’t follow that investment in a commons is the same as state-mandated redistribution. If that was true, there wouldn’t have been factories, universities, churches and roads without a state. But there are.

3) It doesn’t follow that investment in a universal commons (infrastructure) is contrary to conservative dogma. Only that to do so out of charity at a cost, with nothing in exchange, is different from doing so out of opportunity for profit, or out of necessity for the correction of harm. (It doesn’t)

4) it doesn’t follow that taxes must be levied other than fees. (They don’t need to be.)

5) It doesn’t follow that taxes should be put into a general pool and open to use OTHER than the purpose levied. (they shouldn’t – that’s involuntary transfer – and fraud.)

6) It doesn’t follow that the monopolistic state is more efficient than competitive private administration. (It’s not. Ever.) The advantage that government provides is its ability to prohibit privatization of investments in the commons, and therefore make a commons possible. It is not that commons cannot be created without government. It is that the range of commons that can be created without privatization of them is very limited, and therefore very expensive. Since privatization of a common investment is a form of theft. The left is a kelptocracy. It is theft rather than exchange. That is the difference between the left’s vision of society and the right’s vision of society. THe right requires exchange, the left takes by theft. If conservatives understood this one idea, they would use it all the time and win arguments most of the time. Seeking exchange means that solutions are possible. Conservatism without solutions is simply a blocking agent.

7) It doesn’t follow that funding the bureaucracy won’t produce externalities that are of intolerable cost. (it does – one of which is forcing us to spend time defending ourselves against other people’s political movements, as they seek to control the predatory state)

These criticisms are possible using Propertarian ethics. In fact, I often argue, that any ethical system OTHER than Propertarianism, is an attempt to obscure the transfers occurring in politics. And therefore arguing by means other than propertarianism (particularly using empathic appeals, and moral statements) is an act of fraud for the purpose of committing theft.

CONSERVATISM TRADES STATUS SIGNALS FOR REDISTRIBUTION

Conservatism is expressed in metaphorical language. And in that language, Conservatives have one ‘curse word’ with multiple meanings: “Socialism” – state control of property and production and b) “Democratic redistributive socialism” – state ownership of the proceeds from limited private control of property. This ‘curse word’ is a catch-all for ‘those people that use the state to destroy aristocratic individualism and the status signals that each of us gets from individualism regardless of our rank.

And this is important. Conservatives do not feel victims, because they obtain positive status signals from other conservatives regardless of their economic rank. This status obtainable in human societies only through religious conformity and it’s consequences, or economic conformity and its consequences. Conservatives do not object to investment in the commons. Conservatism places higher value on delaying gratification than immediate gratification – the formation of moral capital – which is an inarticulate expression meaning training human beings to enforce a prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds.

Conservatism includes the argument that we should not fund the expansionary bureaucratic state that out of deterministic necessity subverts our property rights and therefore our freedom, and therefore our ‘character’ – a euphemism for the prohibition on involuntary transfers of all kinds – because it is our universal prohibition on involuntary transfers both within our families and tribes and without, that is the source of western exceptionalism: the high trust society.

Our high trust society is unique because we CAN trust others to avoid involuntary transfers, because of the pervasive prohibition on involuntary transfer that we developed under Manorailism by demonstrating fitness needed to obtain land to rent. Partly as a rebellion against the Catholic Church, partly because the church forbid cousin marriage and granted women property rights, in order to break up the tribes and large land holding families. Partly as an ancient indo-european tradition of personal sovereignty in the nobility, which became a status signal, and, thankfully remains a status signal in conservatives.

Small homogenous polities are redistributive. Large heterogeneous polities are not. This is because trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities. And trust DECLINES in heterogeneous polities because of the different signals used by different groups, and the fact that signals in-group are ‘cheaper’ (discounted) that signals across groups with differing signals. A strong state in a small homogenous polity that functions as an extended family and therefore with high redistribution, is entirely possible. But by creating a powerful state in a heterogeneous polity, it becomes necessary and useful for people to compete via extra-market means using the state by seeking redistributions and limited monopoly (legal) rights in order to advance their signaling strategy. (Which is what Dr. Krugman does, daily – advance an alternative strategy. A strategy that he does not recognize is from the Ghetto. And would cause a return to the low trust society. And **IS*** right now, causing a return to the low trust society.

Because the low trust society is natural to man. That’s why it exists everywhere but the aristocratic west.

 

Thanks to Stephan Kinsella for giving me the opportunity to explain why Locke accidentally created the Labor theory of value. (From a FB post)

I’m starting to think one of the costliest intellectual mistakes of all human history was Locke’s ridiculous idea that we own the fruits of our labor (or that we own our labor). This labor theory of property has led to all kinds of mischief, not to mention the labor theory of value and communism and hundreds of millions of deaths, plus the horrible IP system which also literally kills people and retards progress and imposes relative impoverishment.

PLus, Locke anchored his theory in God-owns-us stuff, instead of rational argument, and he was a racist and pro-slaver. Meh.
Lockean homesteading is correct, but not for Locke’s reasons. I’m going to do a long blog post about this.

He needed to justify the middle class takeover of property from the aristocracy. To put a fork in feudalism. In the church. In the feudal commons. And to do that he had to justify ACTION as the source of property ownership.

And he made the obvious logical leap that confused ownership with (a) subjective value, (b) exchange value and (c) market value. Which to us, is absurd, because we work to expose properties of the market in order to illustrate the evils of the middle class and proletarian states. Each of which attempts to reconstruct that aristocratic commons under different administrative ownership – full of sound and fury but changing nothing.

But he wasn’t trying to do [what we are - expose the problem of the middle class and proletarian states]. So he didn’t have the need to disentangle the spectrum that we call ‘value’. (a,b and c above.)

You’re right that he was imperfect and that there have been consequences to that imperfection.

But to some degree, our emphasis on subjective value alone creates a similar problem.

1) Subjective value is immeasureable. (psychological)
2) Exchange value is incomensurable (barter: visible but incommensurable ))
3) Market value is calculable. (prices: visible, commensurable)

I think, that when we libertarians use imprecise language that we make Hume’s mistake. We dont go deep enough and create confusion: political externalities. Just like he did.

Because we do not illustrate the problems that the market solves by commensurability. Instead we think subjective value is self evident. And it may be. But it is incomplete. And therefore insufficient to support our claims.

This is the same problem we have with Rothbardian ethics and Misesian Praxeology. Theyre incomplete as stated. And if incomplete they cannot be apodeictically certain as we claim.

Too deep perhaps. More simply: There is more to value than subjectivity. [Subjectivity is but one point on a spectrum.]

 

Liberty isnt’ ‘inherent’. Liberty is created by force and held by force. And no people without an armed militia to do so has even had liberty. Property is ‘inherent’ in the sense that it’s necessary, and that the mind is organized to make use of it. But liberty, which is the universal prohibition on the involuntary transfer of property, is a construct made and held by the will to use violence.

Liberty is unnatural to man. That’s why it doesn’t exist outside of a few cases in western history.

Liberty produces peace because conflict must be resolved in the market.

Pacifist libertarianism is not only illogical, and counter to the evidence, but it’s suicidal.

Don’t buy into the christian nonsense in libertarian theory. Liberty is a product of the application of violence. It always has been and it always will be.”

 

1) SOCIETY:
A society is an organization. It is an organization of people by norms, using exclusion from, and inclusion in, opportunities to gain adherence to norms.

2) GOVERNMENT:
A government is an organization. it is an organization of people who make decisions over the use of property using a bureaucracy that operates by rules, and violence to ensure those inside and outside the bureaucracy obey the decisions and rules.

3) MARKET:
A market is an organization. It is an organization of people by the use and allocation of resources using the incentives produced by prices, and the promise of deprivation or benefit by adhering to the incentives produced by prices.

4) CORRUPTION:
In any bureaucratic organization, some individuals have greater access to rent-seeking (corruption) than other individuals.

5) PARTIAL MONOPOLY RENTS:
In any market organization, some individuals have greater access to the bureaucracy and can therefore obtain licenses for rents (partial monopolies).

6) REVOLUTION:
A revolution is a replacement of individuals in a GOVERNMENT by a different set of individuals, who allocate property differently to different people, using the same or a different bureaucracy according to the same or different rules. (Revolutions are very expensive and societies rarely recover from them without the passage of generations.) Revolutions occur when one group of individuals outside the government has greater economic power than the individuals inside the government, and seek control over the government to perpetuate and improve their organizations.
a) a market is a continuous reordering of society – revolutions are called ‘corrections’.
b) a society is a continuous revolution – revolutions are called ‘reformations’.
c) Government’s are a process of calcification because of:
i) bureaucracies that stagnate rather than contracted private services that adapt,
ii) laws that do not expire when irrelevant, rather than contracts that do when fulfilled.
iii) Taxes regardless of the effect of the government, rather than commissions because of the productivity of the government.

7) IRON LAW OF OLIGARCHY: All groups need decision makers. Decision makers must consolidate power across a network of alliances in order to make decisions. A bureaucracy is necessary to support conformity to the organization. Once the organization is stable, all individuals inside it seek rents, and the organization exists for the purpose of self perpetuation rather than the fulfillment of its charter.

NOTE: OH. And remember: all emotions are responses to changes in allocation of property. ***The mind is a property engine.*** Purportedly Moral language is just a way of trying to steal from one another and get away with it. :)”

 

You know, I don’t really pay much attention to philosophers outside of economics and politics any longer. But I have to give Rorty another go. Just to see if I’m missing something of value. Every time I re-read a great author I get something new. I can re-read a work by Mises or Hayek a half-dozen times before I feel that I’m not getting something new from it.

My work with Propertarianism assumes that Rorty is right. But I don’t really care to further justify why he’s right (that the discipline of philosophy – epistemology – has been a failure.) It’s pretty obvious that science has solved the problem and will continue to do so. It’s pretty obvious that academic philosophy has become immaterial to society.

This is somewhat odd, because, at least until recently, philosophy has effectively been the religion of our upper classes since ancient greece. (Which is why its in the religion section of the book store. :)

But the art of philosophy: which is to reorganize and reorder our perceptions of causal relations, and the values that we should attach to those causal relations, is still a worthy discipline. We are too reliant on norms and flights of fantasy about ourselves not to have philosophy at our disposal.

And really, it is far better to conduct our political warfare in philosophical debates than it is to in religious conflict, or open war and revolution.

What I do care about, is that **the mind is a property engine**. Saying it’s a “difference engine” is kind of cute, and politically correct. But the differences it calculates are differences in property. If property is to be understood in it’s full scope: as humans actually use it. Rather than the narrow legal or philosophical variants of private property.

Curt, what are your comments on Hoppe’s criticism of Rorty?

http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE3_1_16.pdf – Skye Steward

Thanks for the pointer to this paper. Its the second paper that you have sent me to that would provide a good skeleton to tie propertarianism to.

So first i’d have to explain why Hoppe is invested in rationalism as he means it. Second I’d have to explain Rorty’s argument in propertarian terms. Third explain why Hoppe is wrong. And lastly why Rorty, in general, is right. And from that position i could then illustrate that Hoppe’s argumentation is incomplete, that praxeology is incomplete, and that rothbardian ethics are incomplete. And as such, hoppe’s claims proven incomplete and his motivations would be proven unnecessary. And as incomplete they cannot be subject to the certain as he states.

However, that does not mean Hoppe’s insights are not correct. As I have stated elsewhere, his solution is incomplete because it does not account for heterogeneity of interests.

And where our ancestors lacked empirical evidence and had to rely on universal assumptions, we now have empirical evidence proving heterogeneity of interests.

Rorty’s central tenets are not in conflict with libertarian thought. Hoppe is fighting the wrong war. I have accommodated Rorty. But then i read him with propertarian eyes.

In context Hoppe’s generation was fighting agains a dragon now dead. Having slain that dragon, and faced with a broader polity, we now need to build a camelot. Rothbards ghetto liberty is insufficient and intolerable. Hoppe’s solution is for homogenous tribes. I THINK I may have found one possible alternative in “contractual government” and aristocratic ethics. But i could of course be wrong.

I am having breakfast in a cafe and typing with my thumb. Which is doing an injustice to this debate. So i hope you forgive me for brevity and obscurity. Although i think you probably understand most of what i mean here – typos and all.

Net is Hoppe is half right, but his criticism of Rorty is not the half he is right about.

On the other hand i don’t like criticizing Hoppe. I’d rather produce solutions to the problems of institutions in a heterogeneous polity.

Because a critic wastes air. We need solutions not criticisms.

 

So first i’d have to explain why Hoppe is invested in rationalism as he means it. Second I’d have to explain Rorty’s argument in propertarian terms. Third explain why Hoppe is wrong. And lastly why Rorty, in general, is right. And from that position i could then illustrate that Hoppe’s argumentation is incomplete, that praxeology is incomplete, and that rothbardian ethics are incomplete. And as such, hoppe’s claims proven incomplete and his motivations would be proven unnecessary. And as incomplete they cannot be subject to the certain as he states.

However that does not mean Hoppe’s insights are not correct. As I have stated elsewhere, his solution is incomplete because it does not account for heterogeneity of interests.

And where our ancestors lacked empirical evidence and had to rely on universal assumptions, we now have empirical evidence proving heterogeneity of interests.

Rorty’s central tenets are not in conflict with libertarian thought. Hoppe is fighting the wrong war. I have accommodated Rorty. But then i read him with propertarian eyes.

In context Hoppe’s generation was fighting against a dragon now dead. Having slain that dragon, and faced with a broader polity, we now need to build a Camelot. Rothbards ghetto liberty is insufficient and intolerable. Hoppe’s solution is for homogenous tribes. I THINK I may have found one possible alternative in “contractual government” and aristocratic ethics. But i could of course be wrong.

I am having breakfast in a cafe and typing with my thumb. Which is doing an injustice to this debate. So i hope you forgive me for brevity and obscurity. Although i think you probably understand most of what i mean here – typos and all.

Net is Hoppe is half right, but his criticism of Rorty is not the half he is right about.

On the other hand i don’t like criticizing Hoppe. I’d rather produce solutions to the problems of institutions in a heterogeneous polity.

Because a critic wastes air. We need solutions not criticisms. ;)

 

“ruth·less /ˈro͞oTHləs/

Adjective
Having or showing no pity or compassion for others. feeling or showing no mercy;

Synonyms
merciless – pitiless – unmerciful – remorseless

Propertarian translation: disregard for externalities. Different from ‘cruel’ which is to intentionally cause externalities.”

 

The so called enlightenment is a mental self deception for the purpose of obtaining signals at a discount and nothing more.

The enlightenment view of man was a myth invented to justify the taking if power from the landed nobility. It was that aristocracy that created western excellencies that made us unique in the world, and that we now spend for signaling discounts.

Enlightenment principles are genocidal. And we see that in the reproductive data. Liberals don’t breed.

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