• Propertarianism
    • Propertarianism For Libertarians, by Eli Harman
    • What is Propertarianism?
    • Overview of Propertarianism
    • The Courses on Propertarianism
    • Revolution
    • Glossary
  • Media
  • Reading List
  • About
  • Contact
  • Login

Propertarianism

~ The Philosophy of Western Civilization in Scientific Terms

Propertarianism

Monthly Archives: September 2013

The Value of Hoppe’s Anarcho Capitalist Research Program

17 Tuesday Sep 2013

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Dear libertarian(s)

Some of your statements trouble me, because we need passionate and articulate advocacy of libertarianism. And you’re clearly a passionate and articulate advocate. But it’s better if all of us are the best quality advocates possible, so that we reduce internal friction as wasted effort, and direct it elsewhere where it can be more benefit to liberty.

As Caplan has recently argued, Libertarians tend to behave as moral specialists. The cause of this behavior is the libertarian sentiment – the bias against coercion, and the forced sacrifice of opportunity that causes no loss either directly or by externality. But the problem with sentimental and moral arguments is that they since they ARE intuitive, and intuition is limited to whatever it is that we have mastered by experience.

In order to agree with Bastiat and Hayek (which, like you I do) we must also intuit that they are morally correct. But that we intuit that they are correct is not sufficient to argue apodeictically (rationally) or scientifically (empirically) that they are correct independent of that intuition.

[callout]…prior to Hoppe and Rothbard, the classical liberal … program had failed to produce a … rational, analytical argument for liberty that was anywhere near the argumentative depth and veracity of marxism.[/callout]

To understand the contributions of the Anarcho-Capistalist movement, of Rothbard and Hoppe to the advance of liberty, libertarian ethics, and libertarian institutions, we need only appreciate that prior to Hoppe and Rothbard, the classical liberal (libertarian) program had failed to produce a non-intuitive, rational, analytical argument for liberty that was anywhere near the argumentative depth and veracity of marxism. Had it not been for Rothbard and Hoppe in ethics and Friedman in Economics, and Hayek in politics the world might be a very different place.

It is arguable that the conservative intellectual program has been a failure even if the political program has been a strategic success. And conversely, our intellectual program has been a success, but by empirical standards, a political failure.

The reason we have failed is Rothbard’s ‘ghetto’ ethics are not only intuitively insufficient for the majority who possess classical liberal ethics – they are intuitively reprehensible to them. And for an intuitive system of ethics to evoke intuitively negative emotions is politically problematic. It’s a non-starter. And for us it has been.

[callout]What is it that conservatives cannot rationally articulate or empirically demonstrate, but ‘sells’, and what what is it about our ethics we can rationally articulate but cannot sell? [/callout]

If we again look at what the conservatives have accomplished by focusing entirely on the moral sentiments, and not on ratio-scientific argument, it’s instructive. What is it that conservatives cannot rationally articulate or empirically demonstrate, but ‘sells’, and what what is it about our ethics we can rationally articulate but cannot sell?

I think I know that answer: and it is what is missing from Rothbardian and Anarcho capitalist ethics. Rothbard gave us the ethics of the ghetto – an ethic of rebellion. He did not give us the ethics of the high trust society – the aristocratic egalitarian, Christian, Protestant ethic of the high trust society, in which symmetry of knowledge is mandated by warranty, and externality is prohibited by morality and law.

While the Anarcho Capitalist program is certainly incomplete (I would like to complete it), it is the only advance in political theory that is substantive in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Rothbard reduced all rights to property rights. And he restated history to demonstrate that assertion. It was a fundamental insight, and provided us with an analytical language for responding to marxists. But his analysis of the scope of those rights is artificially narrow, and he provided us with no institutional means of obtaining or holding those rights – possibly because he could not solve the problem of institutions. I am extremely critical of Rothbard for these reasons, because he gave us both an insufficient definition of what is moral, and what is essentially a toothless voluntary religion to hold it with.

Hoppe has explained to us the incentives of why democracy fails, and why monarchy succeeded. He has tried to give us institutions that will provide services without monopoly bureaucracy, or even legislative law. Hoppe solved the problem of institutions – at least in a homogenous polity – and he did it in rigorous language.

He did not solve the problem of heterogeneous polities. (I think I may have, but I am not sure yet.) Neither of these insights were minimal in impact. Rothbard effectively made ethics non-arbitrary, and Hoppe provided a means of ethical governance. Both of them did this by eliminating the monopoly power of government.

Hoppe’s weaknesses are a) he relies argumentatively on rational rather than ratio-scientific arguments, which while I might argue are functionally correct, are causally weak, and we now have the ratio-scientific evidence to prove them without relying on complex (and nearly indefensible) rational arguments alone. b) That he is excessively fawning of Rothbard, for personally legitimate reasons – but that Rothbard is sufficiently tainted by the failure of his moral arguments to hinder Hoppe’s legacy, and his arguments. c) Style issues are those of politically active moralism against Marxists. His native german prose only lends itself to anglo articulation after he has reduced it through repetition. He uncomfortably peppers it with unnecessary ridicule as did Rothbard – which I have been consistently critical of, and which he has slowly laundered from his formal works, but not his speech – because it is in fact highly entertaining to audiences.

These are problems of argumentative method alone, not of intellectual contribution. Hoppe has given us solutions to serious political problems that are two and a half millennia old. That he did so in the language of his time is something to be acknowledged, but the results simply appreciated for the visionary insights that they are.

[callout]…just because we agree with something, and we intuit it, is meaningless, since that is exactly what the people on the other pole of the moral spectrum inuit. Intuitions must be defensible.[/callout]

We cannot say that one is rationally or scientifically arguing for something without a rational or scientific argument. The fact that we are moral specialists, and rely upon moral arguments, and moral arguments that are intuitive to us, may in fact, suggest that our intuitions are correct, if and only if we can ALSO support those intuitions with rational, scientific and institutional solutions. Otherwise, the fact that we intuit liberty to be something moral, is merely an accident of evolutionary biology and nothing meaningful can be said about it.

So I would caution you, and most libertarians, who are, in fact, sentimental, rather than rational, ratio-scientific, and institutionally empirical, advocates, that just because we agree with something, and we intuit it, is meaningless, since that is exactly what the people on the other pole of the moral spectrum inuit. Intuitions must be defensible.

So while I assume you agree with Bob Murphy (who is our best economist) and Bastiat (who is the father of our institutional rhetoric), I would argue that you correctly intuit classical liberal ethics of the high trust society. In this sense you are superior in intuition to Rothbardian intuitionists.

However, we must also acknowledge that the classical liberal political system failed upon the introduction of women and non-property owners into enfranchisement. This is because those without property hold very different ethics – if ethics can be used to describe them. And the female reproductive strategy is to bear children and place the burden of their upkeep on the tribe (society). Private property was an innovation, that allowed males to once again take control of reproductive strategy, and the marriage that resulted from that innovation was a truce between the male and female strategies. A truce that feminists and socialists, and communists, and those that lack property, all seek to break. Private Property and the nuclear family, and the high trust ethic are both politically indivisible. And the classical liberal program cannot survive in their absence.

And no one else has provided us with a solution to this problem other than the feminists and socialists – who which to destroy private property, and the anarcho capitalists, who wish to preserve our freedom, and property.

And as far as I know, I am the only libertarian who is trying to solve the problem of freedom in the absence of the nuclear family that functioned as a uniform reproductive order now that we are in the order of production we call the industrial and technical age.

So these are not questions of sentimental intuition, or belief, or morality. They are questions of institutional, philosophical, and argumentative solutions to the problem of cooperation when the agrarian order of the nuclear and extended family has been replaced by the individualistic and familially diverse.

Political theory is not a trivial pursuit.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
Kiev.

Advertisements

Rate this:

The Value of Hoppe's Anarcho Capitalist Research Program

17 Tuesday Sep 2013

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Dear libertarian(s)

Some of your statements trouble me, because we need passionate and articulate advocacy of libertarianism. And you’re clearly a passionate and articulate advocate. But it’s better if all of us are the best quality advocates possible, so that we reduce internal friction as wasted effort, and direct it elsewhere where it can be more benefit to liberty.

As Caplan has recently argued, Libertarians tend to behave as moral specialists. The cause of this behavior is the libertarian sentiment – the bias against coercion, and the forced sacrifice of opportunity that causes no loss either directly or by externality. But the problem with sentimental and moral arguments is that they since they ARE intuitive, and intuition is limited to whatever it is that we have mastered by experience.

In order to agree with Bastiat and Hayek (which, like you I do) we must also intuit that they are morally correct. But that we intuit that they are correct is not sufficient to argue apodeictically (rationally) or scientifically (empirically) that they are correct independent of that intuition.

[callout]…prior to Hoppe and Rothbard, the classical liberal … program had failed to produce a … rational, analytical argument for liberty that was anywhere near the argumentative depth and veracity of marxism.[/callout]

To understand the contributions of the Anarcho-Capistalist movement, of Rothbard and Hoppe to the advance of liberty, libertarian ethics, and libertarian institutions, we need only appreciate that prior to Hoppe and Rothbard, the classical liberal (libertarian) program had failed to produce a non-intuitive, rational, analytical argument for liberty that was anywhere near the argumentative depth and veracity of marxism. Had it not been for Rothbard and Hoppe in ethics and Friedman in Economics, and Hayek in politics the world might be a very different place.

It is arguable that the conservative intellectual program has been a failure even if the political program has been a strategic success. And conversely, our intellectual program has been a success, but by empirical standards, a political failure.

The reason we have failed is Rothbard’s ‘ghetto’ ethics are not only intuitively insufficient for the majority who possess classical liberal ethics – they are intuitively reprehensible to them. And for an intuitive system of ethics to evoke intuitively negative emotions is politically problematic. It’s a non-starter. And for us it has been.

[callout]What is it that conservatives cannot rationally articulate or empirically demonstrate, but ‘sells’, and what what is it about our ethics we can rationally articulate but cannot sell? [/callout]

If we again look at what the conservatives have accomplished by focusing entirely on the moral sentiments, and not on ratio-scientific argument, it’s instructive. What is it that conservatives cannot rationally articulate or empirically demonstrate, but ‘sells’, and what what is it about our ethics we can rationally articulate but cannot sell?

I think I know that answer: and it is what is missing from Rothbardian and Anarcho capitalist ethics. Rothbard gave us the ethics of the ghetto – an ethic of rebellion. He did not give us the ethics of the high trust society – the aristocratic egalitarian, Christian, Protestant ethic of the high trust society, in which symmetry of knowledge is mandated by warranty, and externality is prohibited by morality and law.

While the Anarcho Capitalist program is certainly incomplete (I would like to complete it), it is the only advance in political theory that is substantive in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Rothbard reduced all rights to property rights. And he restated history to demonstrate that assertion. It was a fundamental insight, and provided us with an analytical language for responding to marxists. But his analysis of the scope of those rights is artificially narrow, and he provided us with no institutional means of obtaining or holding those rights – possibly because he could not solve the problem of institutions. I am extremely critical of Rothbard for these reasons, because he gave us both an insufficient definition of what is moral, and what is essentially a toothless voluntary religion to hold it with.

Hoppe has explained to us the incentives of why democracy fails, and why monarchy succeeded. He has tried to give us institutions that will provide services without monopoly bureaucracy, or even legislative law. Hoppe solved the problem of institutions – at least in a homogenous polity – and he did it in rigorous language.

He did not solve the problem of heterogeneous polities. (I think I may have, but I am not sure yet.) Neither of these insights were minimal in impact. Rothbard effectively made ethics non-arbitrary, and Hoppe provided a means of ethical governance. Both of them did this by eliminating the monopoly power of government.

Hoppe’s weaknesses are a) he relies argumentatively on rational rather than ratio-scientific arguments, which while I might argue are functionally correct, are causally weak, and we now have the ratio-scientific evidence to prove them without relying on complex (and nearly indefensible) rational arguments alone. b) That he is excessively fawning of Rothbard, for personally legitimate reasons – but that Rothbard is sufficiently tainted by the failure of his moral arguments to hinder Hoppe’s legacy, and his arguments. c) Style issues are those of politically active moralism against Marxists. His native german prose only lends itself to anglo articulation after he has reduced it through repetition. He uncomfortably peppers it with unnecessary ridicule as did Rothbard – which I have been consistently critical of, and which he has slowly laundered from his formal works, but not his speech – because it is in fact highly entertaining to audiences.

These are problems of argumentative method alone, not of intellectual contribution. Hoppe has given us solutions to serious political problems that are two and a half millennia old. That he did so in the language of his time is something to be acknowledged, but the results simply appreciated for the visionary insights that they are.

[callout]…just because we agree with something, and we intuit it, is meaningless, since that is exactly what the people on the other pole of the moral spectrum inuit. Intuitions must be defensible.[/callout]

We cannot say that one is rationally or scientifically arguing for something without a rational or scientific argument. The fact that we are moral specialists, and rely upon moral arguments, and moral arguments that are intuitive to us, may in fact, suggest that our intuitions are correct, if and only if we can ALSO support those intuitions with rational, scientific and institutional solutions. Otherwise, the fact that we intuit liberty to be something moral, is merely an accident of evolutionary biology and nothing meaningful can be said about it.

So I would caution you, and most libertarians, who are, in fact, sentimental, rather than rational, ratio-scientific, and institutionally empirical, advocates, that just because we agree with something, and we intuit it, is meaningless, since that is exactly what the people on the other pole of the moral spectrum inuit. Intuitions must be defensible.

So while I assume you agree with Bob Murphy (who is our best economist) and Bastiat (who is the father of our institutional rhetoric), I would argue that you correctly intuit classical liberal ethics of the high trust society. In this sense you are superior in intuition to Rothbardian intuitionists.

However, we must also acknowledge that the classical liberal political system failed upon the introduction of women and non-property owners into enfranchisement. This is because those without property hold very different ethics – if ethics can be used to describe them. And the female reproductive strategy is to bear children and place the burden of their upkeep on the tribe (society). Private property was an innovation, that allowed males to once again take control of reproductive strategy, and the marriage that resulted from that innovation was a truce between the male and female strategies. A truce that feminists and socialists, and communists, and those that lack property, all seek to break. Private Property and the nuclear family, and the high trust ethic are both politically indivisible. And the classical liberal program cannot survive in their absence.

And no one else has provided us with a solution to this problem other than the feminists and socialists – who which to destroy private property, and the anarcho capitalists, who wish to preserve our freedom, and property.

And as far as I know, I am the only libertarian who is trying to solve the problem of freedom in the absence of the nuclear family that functioned as a uniform reproductive order now that we are in the order of production we call the industrial and technical age.

So these are not questions of sentimental intuition, or belief, or morality. They are questions of institutional, philosophical, and argumentative solutions to the problem of cooperation when the agrarian order of the nuclear and extended family has been replaced by the individualistic and familially diverse.

Political theory is not a trivial pursuit.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
Kiev.

Rate this:

A Critique Of The Anarchic Program Compared To The Intuitive and Conservative Programs

15 Sunday Sep 2013

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Dear libertarian(s)

Some of your statements trouble me, because we need passionate and articulate advocacy of libertarianism. And you’re clearly a passionate and articulate advocate. But it’s better if all of us are the best quality advocates possible, so that we reduce internal friction as wasted effort, and direct it elsewhere where it can be more benefit to liberty.

As Caplan has recently argued, Libertarians tend to behave as moral specialists. The cause of this behavior is the libertarian sentiment – the bias against coercion, and the forced sacrifice of opportunity that causes no loss either directly or by externality. But the problem with sentimental and moral arguments is that they since they ARE intuitive, and intuition is limited to whatever it is that we have mastered by experience.

In order to agree with Bastiat and Hayek (which, like you I do) we must also intuit that they are morally correct. But that we intuit that they are correct is not sufficient to argue apodeictically (rationally) or scientifically (empirically) that they are correct independent of that intuition.

To understand the contributions of the Anarcho-Capistalist movement, of Rothbard and Hoppe to the advance of liberty, libertarian ethics, and libertarian institutions, we need only appreciate that prior to Hoppe and Rothbard, the classical liberal (libertarian) program had failed to produce a non-intuitive, rational, analytical argument for liberty that was anywhere near the argumentative depth and veracity of marxism. Had it not been for Rothbard and Hoppe in ethics and Friedman in Economics, and Hayek in politics the world might be a very different place.

It is arguable that the conservative intellectual program has been a failure even if the political program has been a strategic success. And conversely, our intellectual program has been a success, but by empirical standards, a political failure.

The reason we have failed is Rothbard’s ‘ghetto’ ethics are not only intuitively insufficient, to the majority who possess classical liberal ethics. The are intuitively reprehensible to them. And for an intuitive system of ethics to evoke intuitively negative emotions is politically problematic. It’s a non-starter. And for us it has been. If we again look at what the conservatives have accomplished by focusing entirely on the moral sentiments, and not the ratio-scientific argument, it’s instructive. What is it that conservatives cannot rationally articulate or empirically demonstrate, but ‘sells’, and what what is it about our ethics we can rationally articulate but cannot sell? I think I know that answer: and it is what is missing from Rothbardian and Anarcho capitalist ethics. Rothbard gave us the ethics of the ghetto – an ethic of rebellion. He did not give us the ethics of the high trust society – the aristocratic egalitarian, Christian, Protestant ethic of the high trust society, in which symmetry of knowledge is mandated by warranty, and externality is prohibited by morality and law.

While the Anarcho Capitalist program is certainly incomplete (I would like to complete it), it is the only advance in political theory that is substantive in the latter half of the twentieth century.

Rothbard reduced all rights to property rights. And he restated history to demonstrate that assertion. It was a fundamental insight, and provided us with an analytical language for responding to marxists. But his analysis of the scope of those rights is artificially narrow, and he provided us with no institutional means of obtaining or holding those rights – possibly because he could not solve the problem of institutions. I am extremely critical of Rothbard for these reasons, because he gave us both an insufficient definition of what is moral, and what is essentially a toothless voluntary religion to hold it with. Hoppe has explained to us the incentives of why democracy fails, and why monarchy succeeded. He has tried to give us institutions that will provide services without monopoly bureaucracy, or even legislative law. Hoppe solved the problem of institutions – at least in a homogenous polity – and he did it in rigorous language. He did not solve the problem of heterogeneous polities. (I think I may have, but I am not sure yet.) Neither of these insights were minimal in impact. Rothbard effectively made ethics non-arbitrary, and Hoppe provided a means of ethical governance. Both of them did this by eliminating the monopoly power of government.

Hoppe’s weaknesses are a) c) he relies argumentatively on rational rather than ratio-scientific arguments, which while I might argue are functionally correct, are causally weak, and we now have the ratio-scientific evidence to prove them without relying on complex (and nearly indefensible) rational arguments alone. b) That he is excessively fawning of Rothbard, for personally legitimate reasons – but that Rothbard is sufficiently tainted by the failure of his moral arguments to hinder Hoppe’s legacy, and his arguments. c) Style issues are those of politically active moralism against Marxists. His native german prose only lends itself to anglo articulation after he has reduced it through repetition. He uncomfortably peppers it with unnecessary ridicule as did Rothbard – which I have been consistently critical of, and which he has slowly laundered from his formal works, but not his speech – because it is in fact highly entertaining to audiences.

These are problems of argumentative method alone, not of intellectual contribution. Hoppe has given us solutions to serious political problems that are two and a half millennia old. That he did so in the language of his time is something to be acknowledged, but the results simply appreciated for the visionary insights that they are.

We cannot say that one is rationally or scientifically arguing for something without a rational or scientific argument. The fact that we are moral specialists, and rely upon moral arguments, and moral arguments that are intuitive to us, may in fact, suggest that our intuitions are correct, if and only if we can ALSO support those intuitions with rational, scientific and institutional solutions. Otherwise, the fact that we intuit liberty to be something moral, is merely an accident of evolutionary biology and nothing meaningful can be said about it.

So I would caution you, and most libertarians, who are, in fact, sentimental, rather than rational, ratio-scientific, and institutionally empirical, advocates, that just because we agree with something, and we intuit it, is meaningless, since that is exactly what the people on the other pole of the moral spectrum inuit. Intuitions must be defensible.

So while I assume you agree with Bob Murphy (who is our best economist) and Bastiat (who is the father of our institutional rhetoric), I would argue that you correctly intuit classical liberal ethics of the high trust society. In this sense you are superior in intuition to Rothbardian intuitionists.

However, we must also acknowledge that the classical liberal political system failed upon the introduction of women and non-property owners into enfranchisement. This is because those without property hold very different ethics – if ethics can be used to describe it, And the female reproductive strategy is to bear children and place the burden of their upkeep on the tribe (society). Private property was an innovation, that allowed males to once again take control of reproductive strategy, and the marriage that resulted from that innovation was a truce between the male and female strategies. A truce that feminists and socialists, and communists, and those that lack property, all seek to break. Private Property and the nuclear family, and the high trust ethic are both politically indivisible. And the classical liberal program cannot survive in their absence.

And no one else has provided us with a solution to this problem other than the feminists and socialists – who which to destroy private property, and the anarcho capitalists, who wish to preserve our freedom, and property.

And as far as I know, I am the only libertarian who is trying to solve the problem of freedom in the absence of the nuclear family as a uniform reproductive order in the order of production we call the industrial and technical age.

So these are not questions of sentimental intuition, or belief, or morality. They are questions of institutional, philosophical, and argumentative solutions to the problem of cooperation when the agrarian order of the nuclear and extended family has been replaced by the individualistic and familially diverse.

Political theory is not a trivial pursuit.

Cheers
Curt Doolittle
Kiev.

Rate this:

The Necessity, Virtue And Morality Of Organized Violence

07 Saturday Sep 2013

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY: THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE

I (we) may not be able to coerce you into accepting freedom – individual monopoly of control over property obtained by voluntary exchange production or homesteading – as a superior form of cooperation to all other forms of cooperation. But you may not coerce me (us) into abandoning freedom as our preferred, committed, required, demanded and threatened form of cooperation.

THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY IS VIOLENCE

The source of property is the use of violence to create, obtain, and protect it.
Only those who performed militial service created private property.
Only those who performed militial service obtained private property.
Only those who perform militial service will keep private property.

A militia is a voluntary alliance of property owners whose common interest is the preservation of private property rights. A militia is not the same as an army, any more than freedom is the same as liberty. You create freedom by using violence. You request or desire liberty from someone else.

The purpose of a libertarian government is to create private property through the organized application of violence to create it. And libertarian pacifists and moralists are in fact the reason we are losing it.

VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE.
Violence is a virtue not a vice. If all rights are property rights. If property defines morality, then violence to create property is the first moral action upon which all other morality rests.

We should encourage the mastery of violence in all men at all times, and the exercise of violence by all men at all times, in the defense of property rights, the highest form of morality that a man can display.

Because by acts of violence to preserve property he pays the highest contribution to morality possible.

Defense of property does not require words. It requires actions.

FREEDOM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH MILITIA
The only free people are, and must be, a people whose government is a militia, and whose resolution of disputes over property is decided by judges using the single rule of private property as their criteria for adjudication. A militia is synonymous with enfranchisement. No one else has paid for his or her right of property. They merely free ride on the expenses of others.

Therefore, political democracy is synonymous with militial participation. No other meaning is possible. All other attributions are acts of theft by fraud.

Militial participation requires no more than the personal use of violence to protect property rights. The use of the militia is to create and preserve property rights. The use of judges is to resolve conflicts without violence. The use of democratic government is not to create laws, but to create physical commons. The use of public intellectuals, is to carry on the public debate over which commons we may choose to invest in, and which not. The use of ‘religion’ and literature is to teach us these necessary and immutable laws of human cooperation so that we never forget them – and by forgetting them lose our freedom.

You cannot obtain the right of private property at a discount. It is an extremely costly right to possess. It is an extremely costly right to maintain. Those who attempt to gain freedom – property – at a discount, will obtain an inferior product to those who pay for a better one. And the only currency of freedom -property – is violence.

Be armed. Be willing. Be vigilant. And Act.

—–
Curt Doolittle
Kiev, 2013
“Putting violence back into liberty one sentence at a time.”

Rate this:

Property Rights And Taxes As Loans

01 Sunday Sep 2013

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

(ironic humor)

The exchange of free riding, fraud, theft and violence for property rights functions as an involuntary loan of the opportunity to consume by way of free riding, fraud, theft and violence, on the unproductive. In exchange for which, at some later time, they receive the service of less toil, lower prices and greater variation, and freedom from slavery.

Under democracy, the unproductive tax the income of the productive, so that the unproductive receive the same benefit as if they were productive.

The problem is that the productive need the unproductive to have money to spend, in order to maintain momentum (velocity) in the economy, from which the productive benefit.

So as long as the tax money of the productive is given to consumers, and not the government, and not to competing social interests, it’s a necessary and reasonable exchange of value – instead of a forced loan of free riding, fraud, theft and violence from the unproductive for the purpose of consumption, it’s a forced loan from the productive to the consumer.

Now, if the productive could SAVE enough that when they got off the hamster wheel of velocity, that they could maintain their standard of living, I kind of think that this system works in a sort of madcap kind of way. I don’t like it very much. Because the hamster wheel is really risky for entrepreneurs. And I don’t want to suppress the lottery effect. that drives innovation under capitalism. But it might be possible to solve the problem of rewarding entrepreneurship differently from investment and lending.

I think, if I work a little bit more at this I can explain it all in moral language that average ‘folk’ can understand. ‘Cause the language of man is morality not empiricism.

The world we have made is a hysterically funny place.

Rate this:

Curt Doolittle

Curt Doolittle

I am a philosopher of Natural Law, in the Western Aristocratic tradition, and I work for the Propertarian Institute.

View Full Profile →

The Propertarian Institute

Propertarianism is provided by
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

Donations

Donate to the Propertarian Institute Using Paypal

Patreon
Donate to the Propertarian Institute Using Patreon.

Search

About

WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM? Propertarianism is a formal logic of morality, ethics and politics – and the necessary basis for a non-arbitrary, value-independent, universal, body of law. One in which any and all political orders can be constructed; and with which all questions of morality, ethics and politics are commensurable and all moral ethical and political propositions are decidable. Propertarianism supplies the missing logic - the logic of cooperation.

Purpose

To convert western aristocratic egalitarian philosophy into rational and scientific terms: Anglo Conservatism is the remnant of the European Aristocratic Manorial system and the Classical Liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment combined with our ancient indo-european instincts for group persistence and land-holding: truth-telling, the jury, and heroism.

This philosophy - which separates the west from the rest - currently consists as a set of sentiments rather than as an rationally articulated philosophy expressed in scientific terms. And without that rational articulation, conservatives lack the ability to create and promote a plan that is a positive and rhetorically defensible alternative to the hazards of accidental bureaucracy and purposeful socialism.

This lack of an articulated philosophy leaves conservatives vulnerable in the public debate with Schumpeterian public intellectuals whose advantage in both volume of production, and simplicity of argument poses a nearly insurmountable challenge.

Propertarianism solves this problem of supplying a necessary, sufficient, and formal articulation of western aristocratic egalitarianism in ratio-scientific language, and the means by which to restore our civilization to it's competitive advantage: Truth Telling Suppression of Free Riding, and The Construction of Commons.

Follow Propertarianism on WordPress.com

Outline

  • Attributes (377)
    • Anti-Philosophy (10)
    • Aphorisms (19)
    • Charts (2)
    • Core (72)
    • Definitions (69)
    • Economics (5)
    • Education (4)
    • Español (Spanish) (45)
    • Ethics (Property) (1)
    • Fictional vs Juridical (7)
    • General Advocacy (23)
    • Government (Insurer of Last Resort) (5)
    • Grammar of Natural Law (16)
    • Group Evolutionary Strategy (Competition) (2)
    • Languages (Precision) (8)
    • Law (42)
    • Mathematics (10)
    • Pseudo-Economics (Austrian) (3)
    • Pseudo-Liberty Rothbardianism (6)
    • Psychology (Acquisitionism) (1)
    • Quotes (3)
    • Religion (8)
    • Rights (1)
    • Sequences (35)
    • Sociology, (Class, IQ) (10)
    • Sovereignty and Agency (3)
    • The New Right (22)
    • Truth (6)
    • Videos (11)
    • Violence (19)
    • War (7)
    • Western Uniqueness (6)
  • Authors (72)
    • Alberto R Zambrano U (46)
    • Alex Sea (2)
    • Eli Harman (3)
    • James Augustus (6)
    • Joel Davis (8)
    • Matej Lovrić (1)
    • Moritz Bierling (4)
    • Ryan Williams (1)
    • Simon Ström (1)
    • William Butchman (1)
  • Book (221)
    • P01-Problem (61)
      • 1.1-Introduction (problem) (2)
      • 1.2-Uniqueness (40)
      • 1.3-Enlightenment (1)
      • 1.4-Failure (8)
      • 1.5-Reversal (3)
      • 1.6-The Pattern of History (11)
      • 1.7-The Solution (Promise) (11)
    • P02-Man (48)
      • 2.1-Biology (1)
      • 2.2-Mind (2)
      • 2.3-Psychology (5)
      • 2.4-Sociology (18)
        • Classes (4)
        • Genders (5)
        • Races (4)
      • 2.5-Cooperation (7)
      • 2.6-Commons (4)
      • 2.7-Politics (7)
        • 2.7.1-Orders (3)
      • 2.8-Evolution (11)
    • P03-Philosophy (28)
      • 3.1-Introduction (6)
      • 3.3-Epistemology (6)
      • 3.4-Ethics (5)
      • 3.5-Testimony (4)
      • 3.6-Politics (7)
      • 3.7-Evolutionary Strategy (1)
      • 3.8-War (1)
      • 3.9-Aesthetics (1)
    • P04-Law (13)
      • 4.2-Construction (2)
      • 4.3-Application (8)
        • 4.3.5-Conflict (1)
          • 4.3.5.4-Economics and Trade War (1)
        • 4.3.8-The Informational Commons (1)
          • 4.3.8.3-Speaking In Ignorance (1)
          • 4.3.8.3-Speech (1)
        • 4.3.9-Others (4)
          • 4.3.9.2-Artificial, Synthetic, and Mechanical Intelligences (1)
          • 4.3.9.7-Slavery (2)
          • 4.3.9.8-Equality and Inequality (1)
    • P05-Institutions (Thou Shall) (60)
      • 5.1-Intro – Aristocratic Egalitarianism (2)
        • 5.1.2-Markets in Everything (and Market 'fascism') (2)
      • 5.3-The Production of Cooperation (Law) (2)
      • 5.4-The Production of Generations (4)
        • 5.4.0-The Genders (2)
        • 5.4.1 The Reformation of Motherhood (2)
      • 5.5-The Production of Goods, Services, and Information (4)
      • 5.6-The Production of Commons (3)
        • 5.6.1-Institutions (1)
          • 5.6.1.0-Fees, Taxes, And Free Riding (1)
      • 5.7-The Reformation of Information (46)
        • 5.7.1-The Reformation of Mythology (2)
        • 5.7.2-The Reformation of Religion (30)
        • 5.7.3 Reformation of Education (5)
        • 5.7.4 Reformation of the Academy (6)
          • 5.7.4.1 Mathematics (1)
        • 5.7.5 Reformation of the Fields (3)
        • 5.7.6-The Reformation Of The Military (1)
    • P06-Mastery (31)
      • 6.0-Thinkers (2)
      • 6.1-Ideologies (15)
        • 6.1.0-Progressivism (Feminism) (3)
        • 6.1.1-Cosmopolitanism (Judaism) (7)
          • 6.1.1.0-Socialism-Communism (1)
          • 6.1.1.1-Libertinism (2)
      • 6.2-Debate (argument) (4)
      • 6.3-Methodology (7)
      • 6.4-Examples (1)
    • P07-Execution – Revolution (4)
      • 7.01-Introduction (3)
      • 7.09.2-Secession (1)
  • Commentary (1)
  • Off Topic (38)
    • Artificial Intelligence (1)
    • Aspieness (1)
    • Criticisms of the Left (4)
    • Cultural Commentary (1)
    • Diary (1)
    • Healthcare and Other Services (1)
    • Russia and Ukraine (11)
    • Tech Business (8)
    • The Infantile Generation (1)
    • US International Policy (5)
    • Women, Men, Relationships (3)
  • Responses (11)
  • Strategies (3)
    • Islam (3)
  • Uncategorized (4,861)

Archives

  • April 2018 (2)
  • March 2018 (300)
  • February 2018 (226)
  • January 2018 (347)
  • December 2017 (306)
  • November 2017 (389)
  • October 2017 (120)
  • September 2017 (150)
  • August 2017 (8)
  • June 2017 (29)
  • May 2017 (137)
  • April 2017 (99)
  • March 2017 (173)
  • February 2017 (28)
  • January 2017 (8)
  • December 2016 (42)
  • November 2016 (141)
  • October 2016 (136)
  • September 2016 (210)
  • August 2016 (84)
  • July 2016 (5)
  • June 2016 (36)
  • May 2016 (39)
  • April 2016 (97)
  • March 2016 (51)
  • February 2016 (19)
  • January 2016 (81)
  • December 2015 (127)
  • November 2015 (81)
  • October 2015 (14)
  • September 2015 (26)
  • August 2015 (69)
  • July 2015 (108)
  • June 2015 (74)
  • May 2015 (26)
  • April 2015 (10)
  • March 2015 (8)
  • February 2015 (17)
  • January 2015 (26)
  • December 2014 (79)
  • November 2014 (50)
  • October 2014 (12)
  • September 2014 (10)
  • August 2014 (73)
  • July 2014 (76)
  • June 2014 (53)
  • May 2014 (27)
  • April 2014 (124)
  • March 2014 (8)
  • February 2014 (61)
  • January 2014 (7)
  • December 2013 (8)
  • November 2013 (54)
  • October 2013 (6)
  • September 2013 (5)
  • August 2013 (9)
  • July 2013 (47)
  • June 2013 (15)
  • May 2013 (7)
  • April 2013 (43)
  • March 2013 (33)
  • February 2013 (2)
  • January 2013 (7)
  • December 2012 (6)
  • November 2012 (1)
  • October 2012 (4)
  • September 2012 (9)
  • August 2012 (1)
  • July 2012 (13)
  • June 2012 (25)
  • May 2012 (18)
  • April 2012 (37)
  • March 2012 (50)
  • February 2012 (18)
  • January 2012 (8)
  • December 2011 (16)
  • November 2011 (12)
  • October 2011 (2)
  • September 2011 (5)
  • August 2011 (5)
  • July 2011 (9)
  • June 2011 (4)
  • May 2011 (6)
  • April 2011 (16)
  • March 2011 (14)
  • February 2011 (14)
  • January 2011 (7)
  • December 2010 (9)
  • November 2010 (13)
  • September 2010 (5)
  • August 2010 (20)
  • July 2010 (27)
  • June 2010 (10)
  • May 2010 (13)
  • April 2010 (31)
  • March 2010 (3)
  • February 2010 (1)
  • January 2010 (2)
  • December 2009 (4)
  • November 2009 (11)
  • October 2009 (1)
  • September 2009 (2)
  • January 1970 (1)
Advertisements

Powered by WordPress.com.