Improving Hoppe's Origin Of Human Cooperation

–“Human cooperation is the result of three factors: the differences among men and/or the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production; the higher productivity achieved under the division of labor based on the mutual recognition of private property (the exclusive control of every man over his own body and his physical appropriations and possessions) as compared to either self-sufficient isolation or aggression, plunder and domination; and the human ability to recognize this latter fact. “– Hoppe – “NATURAL ORDER, THE STATE, AND THE IMMIGRATION PROBLEM”

[I]’m going to correct Hans a bit here by saying that human cooperation is the result of these properties:

    1) the differences in abilities among men.
    2) the geographical distribution of nature-given factors of production.
    3) the local structure of production: the division of knowledge and labor.
    4) the local structure of the family and inheritance rights.
    5) the distribution of property rights between the individual, family, group and the commons.
    6) the degree of suppression of, and intolerance for, free riding both in and out of family.
    7) calculative, cooperative technology available for economic signaling and coordination. (objective truth, numbers, money, prices, interest, writing, contract, and accounting).
    8) The use of formal institutions to perpetuate these constraints.
    9) The competition from groups with alternate structures of production, family, inheritance, property rights, free riding, cooperative technologies, and formal institutions.
    10) The recognition of these facts. (I question whether this last one is true.)


[T]he more work I do the more I come to see my work as converting hoppe’s Continental arguments into Anglo Empirical arguments. Just like Hoppe converted Rothbard’s Cosmopolitan arguments into more rigorous continental language. [callout]The vast majority of people do not desire liberty – they desire only consumption. They have the numbers. They always will.[/callout]

I think a few people have caught on to what I mean when I say that Hoppe got most everything right. He just didn’t get to the CAUSE of liberty. He was able to deduce all the applications of property rights, but not it’s cause.

I got to its cause. The organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms, and the grant of property rights reciprocally to those who thusly applied their violence.

Understanding the cause changes our tactic in obtaining and maintaining liberty.

You don’t appeal for it. You demand it. If your demands aren’t met you take it.

The vast majority of people do not desire liberty – they desire only consumption. They have the numbers. They always will.

Property rights are a moral conspiracy so to speak.


Good Economics and Bad Economics / Good Philosophy and Bad Philosophy

[I] love Hoppe’s speech on good and bad economics. And regardless of my criticism of deductivism (a priorism) when economics is in fact, entirely empirical (not positivist, but empirical), I agree with him that economics doesn’t have ‘flavors’ but instead either makes true, internally consistent, and externally correspondent statements, or it does not. Worse, bad economics create bad behavior and bad economic conditions.

Now, philosophy is the same. While the discipline of philosophy attracts people who prefer many different FLAVORS of philosophy, the fact is that philosophy is either GOOD or it is BAD. In the sense that it is either TRUE and correspondent with reality, and encourages us to act in correspondence with reality, or it is FALSE and does not encourage us to act in correspondence with reality.

Now since philosophy consists of suites of statements, it’s possible for some philosophies to, as sets produce mixed goods and bads. But it is also possible for philosophies to produce net bads, and net goods.

In the end analysis, we will settle on one optimum philosophy. And that philosophy will be ‘the way’ (constructivism, intuitionism) which we now refer to as ‘the scientific method’.

Not that it has much to do with science. It just arose from the discipline of science.

There is good philosophy (Philosophical Constructivist Realism, and Moral Propertarian Realism) and there is bad philosophy: everything else.


All Law Is Theoretical, And All Laws Merely Theories

[W]hat we have learned about humans from the discipline of science is that we must always adhere to two rules, in articulating any theory, because ALL LAW is a theory, and is bound by the same constraints as scientific theory.

Revision of law, is equally a revision of theory, bound by the same constraints as all theory.

Those two rules are:
— a) Calculability and;
— b) Operational language.

In the context of law, ‘Calculability’ is a property of Empiricism (observation) that refers to the necessity that all monetary actions are made visible – and therefore there is a prohibition on pooling and laundering data through the use of aggregates. This implication is vast, and applies to all laws in all circumstances.

For example, taxes are pooled into general funds, and their use discretionary, rather than taxes (fees) are collected for the purpose of particular contracts, and when those contracts are complete the taxes (fees) expire. Cause and effect are broken. Laws are not contracts that expire. They must be. Otherwise they would be ‘incalculable’.


The Universalist State As A Religion

[L]ets just keep in mind that Universalist Secular Democratic Socialist Humanism, is a religion too OK? There is precious little difference between the church and the university liberal arts department except the anthropomorphized ‘we’ of a god has been replaced with the corporate ‘we’ of the state.

In practice there is zero difference between them. Universalism whether under the edict of a mythical god, or the edict of a corporate state is equally unscientific.


Why Refer To Rotbardian and Misesian Libertarianism as Pseudoscience?

–“…why equate pseudoscience with hermeneutics, given hermeneutics is about textual interpretation? I didn’t follow that link.”– Davin Eastley

[P]recisely because the origin of pseudo science is religion.
The origin of textual interpretation is religion.
The purpose of interpretation is ‘to find something new here’.

Jewish predisposition for, and frequent authorship of pseudoscience, is the result of textual ‘interpretation’, rather than scientific experimentation.

It is not hard to overwhelm the human ability to reason with pseudoscience. It’s pretty easy really. Thats why religion works.

The purpose of:
1) Operational language
2) Internal Consistency
3) External Correspondence
4) Verification and Falsification
…is precisely to make sure that we do NOT overwhelm our very (feeble) ability to reason. The purpose of pseudoscience is specifically to overwhelm our ability to reason.

[O]perational language reduces any statement to that which is open to direct experience. The purpose of external correspondence reduced to empirical data is to construct something that is open to logical analysis. Logical analysis is for the purpose of reducing something to logical experience. Verification is for the purpose of confirming that all this complexity accomplishes what it claims. Falsification is for the purpose of making sure that we haven’t erred in our claims.

The reason the constitution was undermined, in no small part was the introduction of scriptural interpretation into law, which must be, in all circumstances, limited to a) original intent and b) strict constructionism, such that any modifications to the law are not made by judges but by the people’s representative body.

The common law requests judges to appeal to the legislative body when there is some unanswered question that they think needs an answer. Had this been adhered to instead of subject to interpretation, then classical liberalism (freedom) would have held until the population mandated the change, rather than the court mandating the change.


The Four Propertarian Frameworks and Their Uses

(in order) (political particularism) (natural aristocracy) (profound)

1) Analytic/Ratio-Empirical (Propertarian/NeoReactionary) – the people of empire – Anglo American Protestantism.

2) Continental/Rational-Historical (Hoppeian) – the landed and encircled people – German Protestantism.

3) Psychological/Religio-Moral (Classical Liberal/BHL) – The homogenous island seafaring traders – Anglo/Scottish Protestantism

4) Cosmopolitan/Pseudo-Scientific (Rothbard and Mises) – The urban ghetto. A state with in a state. Judaism.

[W]e all bring our baggage with us. Part of that baggage is cultural. Part of it is methodological.

One of the virtues of each author’s attempt to solve the problem of political institutions in the anarchic research program, is that while each err’s according to his culture’s biases, it is much easier in retrospect to find the common properties of each author’s arguments, than it is for any one of us, in any culture, to construct those properties ex-nihilo. Science progresses by falsification. The same applies to philosophy. [callout]Violence is an art. A high art. It is the highest art that nobility can make. Everything else is just decoration.[/callout]

In each generation, we stand on the shoulders of the giants that came before us. And the only way to construct an answer, appears to be to pursue it for three generations. Which we have now done – each of us in our different cultures; and each with our different intuitional and methodological baggage.

1) All four methods are very different. Ratio-empirical, Rational-historical, Religio-Moral(psychological), and Pseudo-Scientific(hermeneutic). All, including the ratio-empirical, place greater weight on the method of distribution of their arguments than on the internal consistency, external correspondence of their arguments.

2) All four method share common properties: a preference for liberty, organizing society for prosperity, meritocracy, inequality, particularism, anti-statism.

3) All four depend differently on the means of propagation and enforcement of the content: Scientific, rational, moral and pseudoscientific arguments

3) All four demonstrate one very different property: The assumption of the effectiveness of the unity of interests in relation to others. Empire, Island, Land, and Ghetto all treat ‘others’ very differently and as such place different constraints on members.


[R]atio-moral arguments are the most effective means of propagating ideas because they are the most pedagogically available to the entire population. But the Ratio-scientific is the most accurate description of the causes and consequences. As such, converting the Ratio-scientific into the Religio-moral form is the most effective means of distributing a particular moral code. The problem is that it takes a great deal of time and effort on the part of many people to do that.

Pseudo-science, as we have seen both in Marxism and in Austrian and Libertarian arguments, are exceptional means of inspiring action, but these arguments generally fail.

The value of religo-moral arguments is that they also inspire action, but if they are based upon ratio-empirical evidence, the elites can continue to construct arguments for the religio-moral mass evangelists.


[T]he problem the west faced, is that while there existed a balance of power between the aristocracy and the church, only the church wrote down their ideas. Aristocracy handed it down by generation. So while the Religio-Moral narratives exist both in our norms and our fairy tales and myths, the underlying, scientific cause and consequences were lost.

Aristocracy depends not on universalism, but voluntary enfranchisement of those who would perpetuate aristocratic property rights against usurpation by a central control. It is not a majoritarian philosophy whatsoever. Majoritarianism was added by the enlightenment as an excuse for the mercantile elite to wrest power from the landed elite.

The origin of aristocracy is to allow a small number to concentrate capital in their families, and too make use of technology to prevent usurpation of that property, or position by others.

Aristocracy is a minority proposition. It is how and why, a small number of families could, by the use of technology, organization and expertise, keep the east and its despotism at bay.

[T]hat is the source of aristocracy.It is a minority proposition and always will be. Liberty is the desire of the minority. And it is only useful for a minority. It entirely permissible for the majority to engage in socialism because it is in their interests to do so. They are NOT aristocratic, meritocratic, or superior in ability and skill.

As such the purpose of a an aristocratic minority, as it has been for possibly 7000 years, is to deny socialists and tyrannists access to their property and control of their freedoms.

Liberty cannot be obtained at a discount. It is not ‘good’ for the majority except in their role as consumers. It is good for those that desire it. And the more liberty we create the more desirable it is for those that would join us.

But the others cannot rationally join us unless we first create property by denying it to socialists and tyrannists.

The source of liberty is the organized promise and application of violence to deny others access to our property, and limits to our freedom.

Violence is an art. A high art. It is the highest art that nobility can make. Everything else is just decoration.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute