My rights are protected by my willingess to kill in order to defend them. Legal documents either require that many people are willing to kill to defend them, or that many people are willing to kill to enforce them, or that many people are wiling to kill to change them.
Moral arguments by contrast are a form of deceptlon by which the weak attempt to gain advantages without paying the costs for obtaining those advantages. That is the sole purpose of moral argument. By contrast, any right that is possessed by virtue of social contracts, formal or not, is possessed only because of the willingness of people to use violence in order to protect it. The government does not protect my rights. I do. Instead, government is a shareholder system whereby we each obtain the productive efficiency of scale in enforcing our defense of established rights, and therefore obtain them at a discount. But the government has that power only because we relinquish it to them. And we do not pay those costs equally. Some of us have a greater virtue of violence at our disposal than others. We are initially wealthier in violence than other people, so the cost of our privileges is higher. While those who are weaker, obtain a higher benefit than do the stronger. This is looking at the mythology from the opposite perspective. Since in all of history, the minority who has the greatest capacity for violence has established all political orders.
[callout]Moral arguments by contrast are a form of deception by which the weak attempt to gain advantages without paying the costs for obtaining those advantages. That is the sole purpose of moral argument. By contrast, any right that is possessed by virtue of social contracts, formal or not, is possessed only because of the willingness of people to use violence in order to protect it. The government does not protect my rights. I do.[/callout]
The west was built diffrently from the east or middle east, because it was built by a fraternity of warriors. Even with our vast specialization of careers, it is still protected by vi olence. Violence is a virtue. The fact that women are poorer in violence, and that the poor and ignorant are less able to pay the sacrifice nand discipline eeded to use it, is why they rely on moral arguments.
THE PROXY FOR VIOLENCE AND SOCIAL CLASS
There is no argument among philosophers, and certainly among political economists, that the system of property rights and exchange, regardless of culture, is a proxy for violence. By monopolizing violence, ‘governments’ force people to compete by production rather than violence. This provides people wiht incentives to produce. Production vastly favors discipline. Wealth vastly favors IQ. Productivity has the negative emotional consequence of amplifying the differences between individuals, and rewarding individuals more diversely than under tribal society, and therefore subjects the proletariat to more negative status signals, and making a social class out of the proletariat because of it, that our tribal sentiments and cognitive biases support.
THE ECONOMICS OF MORAL ARGUMENTS
Moral statements depend on economic circumstances.
In pre-agrarian society, murder, plunder and rape are heroic, not prohibited activities.
In post-industrial society, some sort of redistribution is at least suggested by human sentiments.
“rights” are a MORAL not NECESSARY argument.
Rights are POSSIBLE only when there is very limited SCARCITY.
Legal RIGHTS are only POSSIBLE when a minority is willing to exercise violence to protect them.
We ACKNOWLEDGE the POSSIBILITY of certain rights only because we can AFFORD them at some period in time.
There are vast differences between social classes on what ‘rights’ we can afford at one period in time or another.
The lower social classes argue for rights. The upper social classes argue for utilities. The lower classes breed. The upper classes don’t.
The lower classes envy the productive classes, the upper classes protect their assets.
Property, civilization, society, in ALL CASES WITHOUT EXCEPTION were created by the application of violence by a minority
Ideas held in ignorance are just evidence of ignorance, and nothing more. Moral arguments are irrational arguments because they do not enumerate their properties. Economic arguments are NECESSARY arguments, not the display of PREFERENCES nor MORAL arguments.
The lower classes use resistance movements rather than actions to work against stronger forces.
Resistance movements are ‘costs’. They are opportunity costs. They create economic friction. They create cooperative friction.
Resistance increases the costs for the middle class, and can overwhelm the ability to export violence by the upper classes.
Moral statements on rights made under the threat of the application of either resistance, political violence, or street violence.
“MIGHT MAKES RIGHTS”
“Might may not make right. But might certainly makes all Rights.”
[callout]”Might may not make right. But might certainly makes all Rights.[/callout]
Hence, my correct statement that my rights consist of my willingness (along with others) to use violence to protect my rights.
THE FRAUD OF MORAL ARGUMENTS
Violence is a virtue. It is the first virtue. And those who argue otherwise do so out of either ignorance or fraud.
Because it is fraud to make a moral argument rather than a necessary and economically necessary argument.
Moral arguments are, without exception, arguments made from either ignorance or deception.
In most cases they are made from deception, in order to obtain transfer payments in order to accumulate resources at a discount.
IN effect most if not all proletariat arguments for transfer payments are threats of organized violence against others.
You are welcome to debate this topic with me but I am fairly sure I will prevail. Because unlike you I am not arguing from a network of silly moral deceptions.
In moral arguments “follow the money” is a more valuable technique than it is in forensic investigation.
Because the world is very clearly separated into people who produce and those who form resistance movements in order to obtain the productive results of others by the reliance on moral arguments the implication of which is violence if their wants for transfer payments are not met.
The only good and bad is whether the transfer payments requested by the proletariat threat of violence is Pareto Efficient or not. ie: whether more harm to the economy is done by the transfers (redistribution) than by failing to do so, and over what period of time that harm is created. There is no harm in creating roads because roads increase productivity which is for the good of all. But all redistribution to individuals that is for personal consumption has significant negative consequences. While there is some benefit to Poor Farm’s and Social security, as long as it is a very minimal cost. Creating a dependent class of people by failing to force them to save, is creating an economic hazard. No matter what transfer we talk about the society is exposed to risk by the creation of supposedly risk abating transfer payments.
It is very simple really.