Some Nitwit (“ancap_outlaw”) attempts to ‘refute’ me here.
Do you understand how much of a waste of my time it is to counter this kind of sophomoric drivel? How it’s a moral imperative that I don’t fail to pick up the mess you’re making in the informational commons? How you are forcing me to bear a cost by making assertions rather than asking questions? How you are aggressing against me and the commons in order to preserve your malinvestment in a cult-of-fallacies? How the combination of imposing a cost, forcing me to bear an immoral cost against my will, rather than asking for a moral exchange and bearing a cost willfully?
Before I address this rather tiresome post, here is the last ‘libertarian’ that I ‘corrected’:
Here are the five general arguments I use as the Anti-Rothbardian Canon:
Here is the correction of Mises (Rothbard, Hoppe’s) pseudoscience of Praxeology
Correcting the Libertine Fraudulent History of Man’s Oppression: Man was Domesticated.
Here is an overview of Propertarianism:
NOW LETS WORK THRU THE POST
Starting with this statement to counter the ‘wishful thinking’ deceit:
– If people would just act like the communists wanted communism would work. If people would just act like libertarians wanted, the libertarianism would work. But people don’t act like communists want, or like libertarians want. They act in their own interests like the conservatives say they will. Meaning that communists want a free ride on personal productivity, and libertarians want a free ride on the investments others make in the commons, and only conservatives prohibit parasitism upon both private and common assets, and instead create institutions that one must contribute to in order to benefit from the commons. We cannot make people who will fit the government we want, we must make the government we need to fit the people that we have. There is no difference between libertarian parasitism on the commons and communist parasitism on production.
–“I will debunk”–
Extremely unlikely. Which we will see ….
—“Here Doolittle uses his first of many logical fallacies, in this instance the Strawman. Rothbards beliefs were technically cosmopolitan in that everyone has equal opportunity given they do not aggress upon others, however we find that in reality it is only as cosmopolitan as the people let it be.”—
Cosmopolitanism: (a) The Jewish Enlightenment (reaction to empiricism). The cosmopolitan enlightenmnet consisted of ii) the early working class: Boazian Anthropology, Marx(marxism/communism/socialism) Economics and Sociology, Misesian Praxeology, Freudian Psychology, Cantorian Mathematical Platonism, Frankfurt School Aesthetics,, iii) the later merchant class Randian/Rothbardian Liberarianism, iiii) the later martial class Straussian Conservatism.
Just as empiricism is a restatement of english sovereign contractual ethics, just as french rationalism is a restatement of catholic maternal hierarchical ethics, just as kantian rationalism a statement german hierarchical duty ethics, Cosmopolitanism was a restatement of Jewish conflationary (legal/religious/double-standard) SEPARATIST ethics.
Just as english make excuses by the presumption that everyone of good character can adopt aristocratic ethics (contractualism), and just as the french used Rousseau’s feminine man-in-a-state-of-nature using moral language, and just as germans use accurate assumptions of man, but simply tried to restate christianity in rationalist terms, the Cosmopolitans used ‘Pilpul’, Dual Ethics, Dual ethical law, and what marx called ‘dialectical’ ( excuse making) but which means ‘not objectively or scientifically decidable’ (true), all of which had been practiced under centuries of interpreting jewish law hermeneutically (making excuses).
So when I say Rothbard is a cosmopolitan I mean that he is attempting to justify Separatism (parasitism upon the commons), by means of telling half truths(incomplete definitions, statements, and arguments), that provoke substitution (suggestion) allowing the user to interpret the statements however he wants, and therefore agreeing with that half truth while substituting the other half of the content himself. Thereby agreeing with himself, not with the statement made. Hence the reason there is so much debate in libertarianism – because all the meaningful questions are open to suggestion and substitution. (There is a reason judges would not accept jewish testimony in court – like muslims, lying to others in the service of the jewish tribe or muslim cult is heroic.)
The most aggregious of Rothbard’s use of the deception of suggestion is the NAP. But the NAP is a half truth. We can all agree not to aggress, but agree not to aggress upon what? Hence each of us makes excuses for ourselves, while we agree on what is obvious, but meaningless: aggression.
Yet this is not true in western european law. You cannot aggress against that which others have invested in, no matter how they invested in it because the purpose of the law is not to make excuses for separatism (different ethical and parasitic judgements) but because westerners sought to eliminate retaliation cycles between clans – because for almost all of history, fathers, brothers, and cousins ‘insured’ each other against imposition by other clans.
That is not true for jewish law which has one standard for ingroup members and another for outgroup members.
—“I refer a confused reader to Hoppe, who brilliantly showed how Rothbardian Anarchism can be quite efficiently discriminatory. I find no logical correlation between the term ‘libertine’ and Ancap, Doolittle never elaborated. He also never says where he gets the idea of Libertarian meaning submitting to rule of law, unless he means natural law, which I would agree with.”—
Yes, natural law of non imposition against that which others have born costs to obtain an interest whether monopoly(private property), fractional share(shares), or equalitarian share (commons)
Libertine = does not pay the cost of the (costly) adherence to norms, thereby providing incentive to others not to pay the costs of (costly) adherence to norms. Where norms constitute an economy of signals out of which we message and measure trustworthiness. “what can I get away with?”
Libertarian = pays the cost of norms thereby providing incentive others to pay the costs of adherence to norms. “What can I do to contribute to and signal contribution to, the commons?”
This difference explains both the incomplete “NAP” Fallacy under which the listener substitutes his moral biases, and the use of intersubjectively verifiable property as the scope of property under law. Where law constitutes the forms of property insured by the polity as a means of preventing retaliation and assisting in cooperation. So we see Rothbardianism as nothing more than an excuse to free ride on the commons, and leave open the possibility of all sorts of informationally asymmetric schemes (deceits).
Retaliation is determined by the person who claims the injury, not the injurer. So you do not determine the property rights of another. He does. If you differ, that’s why the state evolves.
—“Voluntarism literally stems from the Non-Aggression principle, which is a moral foundation for society. A man would be expected to respect other nonviolent individuals. I see no need to elaborate further on this misconception.”—
Notice the ‘fuzzy’ excuse-making language ‘x stems from y’ : “because I declare x I can make the excuse y.” Verus “because x exists and we cannot change it, y is necessary to obtain z.”
The intuitive moral instinct to both assist in cooperation (buy options), and punish cheaters (free riders, parasites) even at high cost to the self, evolved to preserve the in-group incentive to cooperate and avoid free riding.
The normative institution of property in toto evolved to limit conflict over possessions (that which others have expended resources to obtain an interest in – either a monopoly (possession) or a partial interest (share), or equal interest (commons). In particular because those impositions ingroup resort in retaliation cycles.
The formal institution of property rights evolved to document which interests that the polity would insure against the imposition of costs. The purpose of documenting them was to homogenize definitions and punishments across clans so that we could reduce or eliminate retaliation cycles.
—“Doolittle then goes on and on about normative, cultural, institutional, monumental, and genetic capital. These are concepts moreso than tangible objects. If everyone went around defending random arbitrary ideas they hold dear, we would be in a state of constant war with each other.”—
(a) but people DO pay for those things by forgone opportunity (just as property is created by continuous payments of forgone opportunity). People DO pay time and effort costs (rituals and festivals). People DO pay the material cost of institutions and monuments. And, most importantly, (b) people DO retaliate against impositions against the costs that they have paid. So people DO enact legislation that prohibits aggressors against their capital stock. (c) people DON”T get into conflict over norms, institutions, and monuments except when immigration causes competition for signals and increases demand for the authoritarian state.
- The purpose of moral intuitions is to prohibit us from imposing costs on the expenditures of others. Unfortunately our reproductive strategies differ so our intuitions vary. Marriage solved most of this.
- The purpose of moral norms is to standardize ingroup differences in moral intuitions.
- The purpose of legislative morals is to standardize punishments across different ingroups.
People retaliate against blackmail even at high cost to themselves because it violates:
(a) the requirement for PRODUCTIVE exchange,
(b) the requirement for non-abridgement of trust.
(c) the abridgment of the common requirement (in other words you can turn someone in, but you cannot turn them in after blackmailing them for it.
People do many things in order to permit or deny others access to the benefits of their polity (numbers).
So you an make excuses (Justify) why you think they shouldn’t retaliate, but the fact that they want to retaliate is enough to falsify your statement. If they want to retaliate it generates demand for authority to prevent retaliation OR greater scope of the law.
—-Yes and its easy to see how badly the ones who wished to utilize a state turned out.—-
You mean how marx’s ethics killed 100M people, by the same method of argument Rothbard uses?
—“ghetto ethics” (or Bazaar Ethics)”—
The ethics of diasporic or ghetto dwellers (low trust polylogical), rather than martial(warrior) land holders(high trust monological). Those who do not construct territorial commons and those that do construct territorial commons. It is what it is. Gypsies use petty theft, jews used parasitism upon the commons. It is what it is. I call it what it is” a low trust ethics of diasporic or unlanded people which we see in the ghetto.
—“The state is the single largest and most effective parasite to mankind and high trust transactions. The state DOES do to others what its subjects are forbidden to do in return.”—
(a) a monopoly military is necessary
(b) a monopoly of natural, common, judge discovered law is …
(c) a monopoly production of commons is not …. a market for commons is ….
(d) holding territory requires commons. (negative commons)
(e) creating property rights requires commons (negative commons)
(f) competing for people and income requires commons as multipliers (positive commons)
(g) not producing commons
—“If you say this as a framework for a nations enforced laws, I’ve got news for you Mr. Doolittle, you would be doing little to achieve a high trust society.”—
Funny because in both the ancient and modern worlds it produced the only existing conditions of liberty in human history.
Please see this graph and explanation of Incremental Suppression under the Natural, judge discovered, common law as the means by which a condition of liberty is constructed by the incremental suppression of the imposition of costs.
It is precisely the means of constructing fully decidable law across individual and group differences.
It is the ONLY necessary basis for law.
The Graph Illustrating Incremental Suppression
THE MEANING OF INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION
(organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding).
1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost.
2) Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation.
3) Cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding.
4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment). They protect the institution by severe policing of cheaters.
5) Rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding).
6) Prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict.
7) Prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights”.
8) Community member (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws.
9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important)
10) High trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival.
11) As a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for tyranny and redistribution.
Aristocracy, Egalitarianism, morality, Nomocracy, meritocracy, Science, and eugenic evolution are mutually dependent.
The chart below shows the incremental suppression of parasitism stating from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest.
Only the west succeeded in developing truth.
And without it we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law.
Truth matters above all else.
Pseudoscience is just babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes.
This emperor is naked also.
Truth is enough to rescue the west.