You’ve Got It Backwards : Aristocracy

Aristocracy CREATES property rights by forcibly demanding them of everyone he or she encounters, under the threat that he restricts his use of his WEALTH of VIOLENCE, only upon the condition that all others do so as well.

It is not that the world desires property rights. Demonstrably that is false. What the world desires is to be taken care of and to consume, as a comfortable slave or farm animal.

To be human, requires property.

The only possible form of HUMANISM is ARISTOCRACY that demands by the threat of violence, property rights for all.

Without property you are not human. You are only an animal, herded and shepherded like any other.

Why Progressives Are In Denial

 

Why progressives are in denial over the immorality of GROWTH via CONSUMPTION and IMMIGRATION, rather than GROWTH via CONSTANT POPULATION and INVENTION.

Because if they don’t stay buried in denial, they have to admit that their greatest ‘achievement’ of the 20th century was a catastrophic failure that destroyed the inter-GENERATIONAL system of calculation, cooperation and incentives.

You know, there isn’t much difference between the necessity of money and prices for temporal coordination, and for the necessity of credit and interest for short inter-temporal coordination, and for the accumulation of wealth, and borrowing for long term, intergenerational coordination. These means of calculating are necessary, not arbitrary.

FACTS
The following are true;
(a) consumption requires that population increases.
(b) growth requires that innovation increases
(c) consumption is not growth it is expansion – there is a difference.
(d) consumption can finance growth.
(e) the limit of consumption to finance growth is determined by the rate of invention produced by the financing of consumption.

(There is a tidy graph defined here, but I”m not interested enough to go draw it, so I’ll leave it up to your imagination.)

I don’t need to bring up that growth via consumption is dysgenic, and growth via invention is eugenic. We have to think about THE PLANET after all.

I also don’t need to bring up that growth via consumption is the (mindless) female reproductive strategy that depends on regulation by nature, and that growth via invention is the (mindful) male reproductive strategy, and that this largely provides the explanation for the differences in voting behavior.

NO FREE LUNCH

http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2013/11/the-generational-injustice-of-social.html

Helping Others With Other People’s Money

 

… is just a cheap way to demonstrate conspicuous consumption because of your wealth. It’s Status seeking. It’s selfish. If you want to change the world, then pay for it yourself.

It doesnt take much. Just a little self sacrifice.

But everyone is a wanna-be. A pretender.

“Artificial feel-good.”

If it doesn’t cost it doesn’t have value.

(CORE) On Race And Diversity In Libertarianism

(cross posted for reference) (insights) (important)

METHODS
Methods of justification for libertarianism (or any other political and moral bias)
1) Sentimental (I like it)
2) Moral (it’s better)
3) Historical (it works)
4) Empirical (direct experimentation)
5) Economic (indirect experimentation)
6) Ratio-scientific (cumulative evidence and theory)

TWO SOURCES OF LIBERTARIAN THOUGHT
1) Conservative and Classical Liberal Land holders (christian)
2) Anarchic and religious non-land holders (jewish/gypsies)

FOUR SOCIAL STRUCTURES
1) German (Kant/hierarchical/duty/nuclear family)
2) French ( Rousseau/equalitarian/care/traditional family)
3) British (smith-hume+ / aristocratic egalitarian / empirical/ absolute nuclear family)
4) Jewish (ricardo-mises-rothbard/tribalism)

FOUR AMBITIONS
1) The british saw free trade as an international means of achieving peace and prosperity for all europeans.
2) The germans were trying to resist british consumerism’s disruption of ‘social order’ implicit in german ‘duty’.
3) The french were trying to extend the family to all of society, and demonstrate their nobility having failed to conquer Europe.
(The failures of the world wars and transformation from demonstrated material achievement, to the use of generosity and diversity to maintain status, explain current european behavior.)
4) The jews were and are, trying to justify their participation in a host society without integrating.

THE ANSWER
There are two basic reasons for ‘tolerance’ in the libertarian movement.
1) Jewish authors justifying right to inclusion but denial of the necessity of payment into the commons.
2) christian authors arguing for payment only into non monopolistic commons, while retaining a homogenous moral commons.
3) feminist and postmodernist influences.

DOMINANCE OF JEWISH THOUGHT
I think that Rothbard brought his heritage to the table (just as Hayek stated of Mises) and he conflated the two ambitions.

This is actually, the reason why rothbard failed to give us a morally tolerable libertarianism. And it is why libertarianism fails to gain traction. Humans are tribal. Immigration is a political problem. And human seek political power. So it is better to have a homogenous, liberty seeking people, for whom no seizure of power is of any group benefit, because the group is already in power. And there is no incentive for status achievement, because in a homogenous society, there is no status value to trying to gain power.

HOPPE’S CORRECTION
Hoppe, through admittedly interesting logic, has shown that rothbard was wrong. I have I think, with rather scientific rather than purely rational terms, demonstrated that Rothbard was wrong.

CHRISTIAN ARGUMENT
There is a very great difference between ‘we will not fight despite our differences if we trade’ and ‘we are all equal and can politically cohabitate without conflict’. Politics is a family matter. Trade is a cross-family matter. We can easily trade, but we cannot be politically diverse without replacing conflict over trade with conflict over politics.

ROTHBARD WAS WRONG.

THE STATUS ECONOMY RULES. We don’t ‘need’ much as human beings, except to hold onto our status, improve our status, and prevent loss of status. Loss aversion is more applicable to status than any other human trait except perhaps life and limb. We accumulate status, and desperately hold onto it.

(CORE) On The Utopianism Of Libertarianism

TO TOM : ON THE UTOPIANISM OF LIBERTARIANISM
(all) (worth reading) (insight)

Rothbard’s idea is INTENTIONALLY UTOPIAN because he was, like dozens before him, creating a ‘religion’ in pre-democratic political terms, or what in democratic political terms is ‘an ideology’, using OBSCURANT LANGUAGE – the purpose of which is resist criticism, empower argumentation, and create community.

The MI group (Lew) then took this ideology and used the internet to propagate that ideology the way the marxists used inexpensive pamphlets, newspapers, books and universities. But, Rothbard’s libertarianism is an ideology (religion) not politics (formal institutions of cooperation).

That Rothbard used the rebellious ethics of the jewish ghetto rather than the the high trust ethics of the aristocratic egalitarian society (protestant christianity) is just because it was familiar to him. Hoppe by contrast, repaired a great deal of Rothbard’s errors, but in doing so left us with not necessarily utopian, but certainly a system of ethics dependent upon equality of ethical and moral action, under the nation states with absolute nuclear families, and therefore fully homogenized property rights. This system cannot tolerate diversity.

However, by adding monarchies, and strict property rights, hoppe’s argument is such that it is possible to have DIVERSE COMMUNITIES each of which uses its own norms and status signals, but which trades and exchanges according to private property rights. And this is possible because under monarchy and property rights, individuals are denied access to coercive political power. So, in Hoppeian terms, groups may continue to act as extended families.

What I have tried to do is empirically demonstrate that both genetics of gender, and family structure (the structure of reproduction) determine moral codes. And that the Absolute Nuclear Family is the ultimate compromise between male and female reproductive strategies. But that the evolution of democracy combined with feminism,and the destruction of the nuclear family by feminists in alliance with socialists, has led to a circumstance where women can now ‘marry the state’ for financial support and obtain support from males without exchange of care and sex. This is not unnatural. Humans are naturally serially monogamous and women in history seize both the best male fertility, and the best male support in exchange for sex, that they can – but not from the same person, from many men.

Property is not natural. It allowed men to control reproduction, and women resent this because it places a greater burden on them to make a choice of husband, and they are stuck with what they get. And they can no longer control group behavior by trading sex and affection. It is this choice, plus the need to create a home and property to support a family that created the compromise that was the protestant ANF.

For this reason, both Rothbard and Hoppe make the mistake that was made by classical liberals: once included in the voting and work pool, women have sought to restore control over their reproduction and independence from the compromise with males.

If you want to understand the drive to socialism, there are two axis of cause. This is the first, the second is that small homogenous groups that are out-bred are in fact, family members and as such socialism (in the nordic model) makes sense. There is no ‘belief’ system here. it is all justificationary language. The fact is that the structure of production at any given time can be optimized by a particular structure of reproduction (the family). And that freedom (liberty) is only possible in small, homogenous, out-bred, groups formally forbidden to intermarry as a means of obtaining insurance, and instead, forced to outbreed, and therefore seek insurance from ‘the tribe’ with the state as the insurance broker. This situation cannot change, because it is against the reproductive interests of humans to change. It is suicide to change. Small homogenous outbred families are in fact, highly redistributive, healthy organizations that eliminate near proximity competition and force all competition into the market for goods and services – there is no outlet left. NONE. That is why it works. The ANF, is the genetic institution that creates a compromise. It is, in fact, SOCIALISM. (Let that sink in a bit and it will alter your world.)

THIS IS, IN NO SMALL PART, THE FIRST SECTION OF MY BOOK. It explains the diversity and immutability of moral codes, and therefore the political expression of morality informal institutions, as relationships between the structure of production and the structure of the family; And it is illogical to expect humans to act otherwise – against their reproductive and experiential interests. It is NOT PRAXEOLOGICALLY RATIONAL to ask people to act against their interests.

SO ROTHBARD, HOPPE, AND ….

1) Rothbard (tribal religion of non-landholders)
2) Hoppe (private nation state of land holders)
3) Doolittle (private federation of states of land holders)

With these three models we complete libertarianism in all its possible forms. This is the corpus of solutions from the most ideological and religious (rothbard) to the most practical and moral (hoppe) to the ratio-scientific (doolittle). All of which are founded on property rights – although I have used DESCRIPTIVE property rights across ALL family structures where hoppe and rothbard have use PRESCRIPTIVE property rights and ASSUMED the nuclear family as the unit of reproduction.

(That’s what I’m up to. ‘Completing’ libertarianism. )

UTOPIAN?
Rothbard’s fantasy is clearly utopian. It hasn’t worked very well for the jews, that’s for sure. Except for the postwar period, the entire world has been killing them by the hundreds, thousands and millions for millennia. Comparisons to India’s Gypsies is pretty common, except that gypsies are anti-intellectual at the bottom and jews hyper intellectual at the top. But, what rothbard DID, was reduce all rights to property rights, and give us the answer to human cooperation in doing so.

Hoppe’s solution is ABSOLUTE GENIUS and so deeply engrained in political discourse by now that everyone’s forgotten it’s his idea already. While Argumentation is an analogy, not a cause, (and so I’m critical of it), he used it to deduce the solution to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy and the state by reducing the state to a contract on property rights, and using insurance companies, which is the states’s actual function, to form a competitive bureaucracy.

His solution is not empirically derived, it is rationally derived, and he still makes (unfortunately) moral arguments in the rothbardian model, but in fact, he DID SOLVE THE PROBLEM that has been the ‘problem of politics’ for 5000 years. And as far as I know, no other thinker has done this – based on (ack) argumentation or not.

I won’t go into why argumentation worked despite the fact that it’s a bit silly. That would take me too long. But it allowed Hoppe to deduce the correct answers in almost all cases. IN particular, to immigration. Which again, the migratory, non-property owning, progressive jewish wing of libertarians find understandably uncomfortable.

END RESULT : A RESEARCH
There is nothing utopian about a RESEARCH PROGRAM, which is what I see hoppe, rothbard and Hayek pursuing. Hayek did not have information theory. Hoppe did not have the empirical evidence we have today. Rothbard either didn’t understand or din’t want to understand his moral code’s implications. Mises got praxeology backwards. But it was all there. It was all there. We just needed a little more time. And as far as I can tell it is the most valuable political research program since the enlightenment and not matched in creativity since athens.

Calculation is necessary. Reproduction is necessary. Cooperation is necessary.

Everything else is preference.

Dont Throw Out The Libertarian Baby With The Progressive Bathwater

LIBERTARIAN != ROTHBARDIAN ANARCHO CAPITALIST. Classical liberals are also ‘libertarians’. Rothbardians via the Mises institute adopted the tactics of the marxists, but this time, using the internet – so they’re ‘everywhere’. Anarcho capitalism was structured like the marxist IDEOLOGY. It is a MORAL, not scientific argument, for ideological rather than political purposes.

The anarcho capitalist program DID give us:
a) the incentives of a bureaucracy are worse than the incentives of a monarchy.
b) the critique that democracy was simply a slow road to communism,
c) propertarian ethics that make all moral codes commensurable and
d) the use of competing insurance companies to replace monopoly bureaucracy.
e) the sufficiency of the common law, and the necessity for it.
f) the state as the cause of ‘evil corporations’.
g) the required prohibition on law-making, and the constraint of government to contract negotiation between groups.

What it did not give us is:
a) means of investments in commons (government)
b) means of preventing free riding, fraud by omission, theft via externality, privatization of gains and socialization of losses.
c) a means of accommodating the collectivism of women in their effort to restore the sex economy in favor of the productive economy (but that’s too long a discussion.)

Thankfully others have given us:
a) lottocratic representation
b) direct democracy

And hopefully I’m trying to fix that. I think I have. But I’m not sure.

http://blog.jim.com/politics/the-dark-enlightenment-critique-of-libertarianism.html

um… we’re libertarians.

Um…. We’re libertarians.

It’s not just that we have the best political philosophy. It’s not just that we have the best articulated political philosophy. It’s not just that our political philosophy corresponds to human behavior as it is, rather than as we wish it was. It’s not just that we’ve solved the problem of formal institutions. Its not just that our political philosophy is a system for achieving economic prosperity that humans demonstrably prefer. It’s not just that everyone seems to prefer to live in more libertarian countries.

It’s that, other than the marxists, we’re the ONLY political position that has an articulated political and economic philosophy; it’s that we have the ONLY political philosophy corresponds with the human beings as humans actually ACT in real life; and it’s that we have the ONLY political philosophy that’s solved the problem of monopoly bureaucracy and formal institutions; it’s that we have the ONLY articulated philosophy that gives precedence to prosperity instead of power.

It’s hard being the only rational person standing.

People aren’t rational tho. Their moral. At least. In their own terms.

The Reason You Use The Word ‘liberty’ And Not ‘aristocracy’?

 

Because you are carrying around the enlightenment error that anyone other than egalitarian aristocracy actually desires liberty. They don’t.

Aristocracy:
1) Private Property Rights in exchange for contributing Perpetual Military Service in the defense of private property rights of all who have earned them.
2) Egalitarianism: anyone willing to also grant rights and contribute service can also gain those rights by contributing that service.
3) Denial, by promise of violence, of any and all concentration of power sufficient to alter the distribution of property and property rights.
4) The Absolute Nuclear Family and Prohibition on inbreeding.
5) Chivalry: Social Status Through Charity, and service as well as through arms.
6) Decision Making by majority vote of those who have earned property rights.

Aristocracy is tribal paternity and property rights, open to all who will equally grant them, and defend them.

LIBERTY EXPRESSED AS A ‘RIGHT’ IS AN ATTEMPT TO GAIN PROPERTY RIGHTS AT A DISCOUNT, AND NOTHING ELSE.

The Two Dark Or Anglo-counter-enlightenment Projects

 

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.

Aristocratic Egalitarian Vs Rothbardian Ethics

 

(revised and expanded)

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

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

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

1) Manners are immediately visible. Just like aggression.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just how it is.