Jan 17, 2020
Curt Doolittle is trying to hijack the word “propertarianism.” That’s okay; one cannot own a word. To avoid confusion, I will use the term “Reciprocism” for Doolittle’s philosophy. Libertarians define propertarianism as:
propertarianism [libertarian] - support for sticky (neo-Lockean private) property. That is, property defined as the disposition and use of a scarce rivalrous resource.
Doolittle’s collectivist oriented political definition is:
propertarianism [reciprocist] - support for demonstrated property. That is, property defined as anything which people tend to show a willingness to defend.
The most obvious difference in these definitions is the scope of property, that is, the range of things that can be considered property. Libertarian property is very narrow in scope. It only includes uses of real concrete resources, and then only if they are scarce, or more precisely, rivalrous. Rivalrous means that if one person is using it, others are inhibited from using it. A dead tree physical book with the title “Huckleberry Finn” is a rivalrous resource; the string of letters and symbols comprising the novel are not. Thousands of people can download a pdf and read Huck Finn at the same time, without adversely affecting the other readers. Thus, libertarian theory rejects intellectual property.
The Doolittle notion of demonstrated property (aka property-in-toto) is more general. It includes sticky property, but also includes individual and group interests, values, sentiments, and beliefs. Since group interests are held to have property status, we can reasonably call this a collectivist notion.
This brings up an important distinction. Doolittle actually offers us two theories: a General Demonstrated Property Theory and a specific application of that one could call a Constitution of Nationalist Reciprocism.
General Demonstrated Property Theory
The general theory is a good model for considering all types of property systems, from the sticky propertarianism of anarcho-capitalists to the statist socialism of classical Marxists. It is broad enough to cover both libertarian and statist political ideologies and property norms. For example, if the only demonstrated property that a given society would defend is sticky private property, then that anarcho-capitalist choice can be accounted for by the General Demonstrated Property Theory (GDPT.) But as one can see, statist socialism and fascism can also be framed using this model. All particular property systems fall into the “demonstrated property” model, so long as there is some community that holds those norms.
Strict Scarcity Property
Types of Common Property
Regulation of Transactions
Lowaggression/fraud prohibited only
Highstrict rules of reciprocity limits
Highstrict rules of collective property limits out-group interaction
Highstrict rules, regulation, and licensing limit out-group interaction
The GDPT is compatible with communism since such a society believes that they have an interest in the means of production, and that private property imposes a cost on this demo-property. Biblical and Sharia law are also covered, for people who believe that, e.g. stoning adulterers and homosexuals is a demo-property. Fascism is explained; national greatness and “our culture” is a demonstrated property for some societies. Of course, a libertarian society too could be described as reciprocist - a society where only "sticky" private property is considered demonstrated property.
The particular application of demo-property being promoted by Doolittle and podcaster John Mark is a Constitution of Nationalist Reciprocism (CNR). The major collective value (demonstrated property) which Doolittle wants to maximize is social trust. This is very different from the individualist position of libertarians, who believe that non-aggression is more important.
The primary social value for libertarians is non-aggression;
the primary social value for reciprocists is maximizing social trust.
This is not to say that reciprocists do not value non-aggression, or that libertarians do not value social trust. They do. Libertarians contend that a peaceful society will, as a consequence, have a high level of social trust. Reciprocists contend that high levels of social trust result in more peaceful societies. But make no mistake, the vastly different primary values lead to vastly different social and political models. For example, libertarianism is compatible with a minimal State and even anarchism, but not with political authoritarianism. Conversely, reciprocism is compatible with a strong active State and even totalitarianism, but not with anarchism or even minarchist libertarianism.
Reciprocism requires a strong State since, to maximize social trust, the State must use its authority to:
- Remedy free riding, and
- Enforce positive rights and “mandate universal moral behavior.”
It is clear that Doolittle has a very authoritarian State in mind - one that rounds up and kidnaps people without government papers, for example. After all, by reciprocist logic, if foreigners harm “our” demonstrated property - our network of trust - then they are vandals or thieves. The reciprocist State may treat them as such. That is the reciprocist case for closed borders.
Remedying free-riding is a crucial issue where libertarians and reciprocists profoundly disagree. Free-riding, objectively, means nothing more than receiving gifts. Economists call such gifts “positive externalities.” Some examples are: the pleasant smell of flowers from a neighbor’s garden, radio broadcast waves, and a safe neighborhood. In libertarian theory, no one owns these things. They are what Bastiat called “the gratuitous domain.” If someone benefits from a good that was “broadcast,” then that is nice for the free-loader, according to libertarians. There is nothing more to say. Reciprocists want to force the person who smelled the flowers, or listened to the radio broadcast, to pay. Regulating and controlling all the many and varied positive externalities is practically impossible. To libertarians, it would be criminally unjust, since it necessitates aggression.
To libertarians, free-riding is permitted. If you broadcast your service, then don’t expect the government to help you get paid.
To reciprocists, free-riding is fined.
In the second part of the plan, the CNR would gives the State the power to judge truth, and to prosecute anyone the ruling elites claim is lying. Furthermore, the State judges all transactions on whether they satisfy exacting but subjective criteria.
One can also state the principle of non-imposition as the requirement that all transactions have the following properties:
- Symmetry of knowledge,
- Without externalities of the same (previous) criteria.
- Curt Doolittle
So Reciprocism gives us a very subjective collectivist notion of property as ‘whatever people are willing to defend,’ and then gives us a list of subjective criteria that every transaction must satisfy, and then has the temerity to say:
The principle of non-imposition in combination with demonstrated property allows a polity to construct law in a way that eliminates the need of discretionary interpretation, that means it provides decidability for all questions of law and contract. - Curt Doolittle
Needless to say, Doolittle’s grandiose claim is entirely wrong. I would expect a deluge of frivolous lawsuits, with people suing each other for imagined breeches of demo-property rights. The State would have to ignore most accusations, and would inevitably selectively enforce only those cases that were in the interests of the ruling elites. This would be oligarchy through court overload.
The political program of the Constitution of Nationalist Reciprocism is to put all government decision-making power into the hands of the Supreme Court. That’s it! Give all power to the supreme court and let them decide what truth is.
It is amazing that self-labeled conservatives would fall for this, but John Mark, the voice of the “grass roots right,” believes that CNR will save western civilization from the hoards of ignorant inferiors and prevent government redistributionism. Conservatives who buy into this are very short-sighted, swallowing the naïve assumption that the Supreme Court will always be conservative, and (contrary to history) can never be bought off. They assume that demo-property will be interpreted by the rulers in ways they like, rather than in ways that e.g. democratic socialists like.
The fundamental flaw in the reciprocism is that it enables and promotes a very dangerous notion of property: that property is totally subjective and anything - any wish or whim or desire or interest - can be property. People can feel an interest in and fight for virtually anything - and they have. Demonstrated property is an anti-concept - a concept that tries to destroy its own premise. Demo-property seems to be an Orwellian attempt to obliterate the concept of property in its strict scarcity sense.
The main danger of the Constitution of Nationalist Reciprocism is that it defines property so generally that tyranny by kritarchy is not only allowed, but virtually guaranteed.
It should be noted that Doolittle has a aspirational definition, too:
propertarianism [gen] - a theory which attempts to combine science (rational empiricism) with social ethics. It purports to solve the is-ought problem by making language more precise.This definition is not relevant to this economic and political discussion. See Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella Doolittle's critique of libertarianism: Reforming Rothbard: The Rothbardian Fallacies
Discussion from the Propertarianism Facebook Group
We got a post from Curt Doolittle himself. (In another thread. I’m trying to center the discussion here.)
P-law is descriptive: what people do. Libertarian ethics are strategic: allow undermining of demonstrated interests. Exit and voluntary disassociation deprive aggressors of invasion. Why do you have a right to the social economic and political order of those you force a cost upon? You don't. You see this is a parasitic people's argument you make: permit undermining, free riding, parasitism. The market for polities solves the difference in desires for the consumption of polities. So use the market consume a polity that is in your interests, without imposing costs upon others. So move to your preference.
As my essay says, Curt, I agree with the descriptive part of your thesis - that libertarianism and anarchism-communism and fascism and Marxism can all be formulated in terms of demo-property. I call that your GDPT, general demonstrated property theory. I depart from you when you go normative, and claim that social trust is a primary value, rather than non-aggression. I call this your CNR, Constitution of Nationalist Reciprocism. See the essay.
Then we depart on empirical grounds.
Both non-aggression and social trust are empirically beneficial for a society ceterus paribus. Both are based on empiricism. Your choice to prefer social trust to non-aggression is normative. Don’t kid yourself.
Bill, trust is the result of agreement of social values. Non-violence is trust in practice. How do you theorize the practice of nonviolence can be achieved without defining trust?
One can have non-violence or non-aggression without trust. E.g. The live and let live attitude. I would say that non-aggression is a prerequisite to trust. If people are beating each other up for resources, then they will not have trust.
Disrupting the social structure does impose a cost. Their form of immigration is parasitic.
I disagree. It is not parasitic since they do not in any way damage anyone’s property. Oh, they damage Doolittle’s imaginary demonstrated property, but not actual scarce-entity property. Demo-property is totally subjective, and allows people to make frivolous property claims, like “I feel less safe, so you are violating my property.” Or, “I don’t trust niggers, so I have a property right in not having niggers around.” That’s reciprocism, and that attitude naturally attracts conservative bigot types. That’s okay; fuck conservatives. My purpose in examining reciprocism is to debunk it from a libertarian perspective, because its lingo seems designed to corrupt conservative-leaning libertarians, e.g. expanding the notion of property until it’s a collectivist subjective anti-concept.
False promise. Never will debunk anything in P. Not going to happen - ever. What you can do is say some given P-order is more or less preferable for some set of reasons. Or you can say it is or isn't possible to implement. Or it's insufficient and people need a via positive theology or philosophy. But there is zero chance anyone is going to falsify Propertarianism - or any part of it. And very very smart people have tried.
And note that Bill
- argues a straw man ... that we're measuring trust, rather than the imposition of costs on demonstrated interests.
- never answers the questions I propose for clarification.
- is copying the 'leftist' game of 'term appropriation': There only one libertarianism (Rothbard) and one Propertarianism (mine), but both systems were criticized as 'propertarian' which was an insult, and why I chose it. Evidence in image attached. I registered the domain names and the trademark. Why? It wasn't in use anywhere. Only the 'insult' propertarian. So no. I'm not hijacking it. I coined, registered and trademarked it, and Propertariaism is and has been the name of the work I've produced.
Hogeye Bill: propertarianism [libertarian] - support for sticky (neo-Lockean private) property. That is, property defined as the disposition and use of a scarce rivalrous resource.
- I know the canon as well as anyone and that is not what anyone I know of has said. Hoppe has called property a scarce and rivalrous resource, not Locke, and;
- Locke has stated only that when one combined his labor with something it became his property. This is something I call 'demonstrated interest' but I include not doing something (bearing a cost of forgone opportunity) as well as doing something (bearing a cost).
Hogeye Bill: Libertarian property is very narrow in scope.
Hogeye Bill: We can reasonably call this a collectivist notion.
First you're trying to taint by association. Sophomoric but then, libertarianism is sophomoric. Second, so is all shareholder property a commons. It's just a numerated commons (n, number per person) and other commons are un-enumerated (1 interest per person).
So when you say collectivist you're trying to construct a lie that such goods are open for consumption or irreciprocity, when shareholder property (commons) is PROHIBITED from consumption. So your argument would result in us not being able to pool our interests in anything at all, such as PROPERTY RIGHTS.
The obvious contradiction here falsifies your criticism, and it always strikes me that the Jewish libertarians try to use pilpul to create a theological, moral, and physical necessity. Property Rights can only be constructed as a normative or institutional commons. So can defense. And so can many things that may be produced by forgone opportunity - NOT doing something. All norms and traditions that are not irreciprocal therefore are common property if property rights are.
(That's pretty much the end of anything you can say right there, but since an idiot like you shows up about once or twice a year, it's good to be thorough and at least save my self the effort for another year.)
Hogeye Bill: The primary social value for libertarians is non-aggression; the primary social value for reciprocists is maximizing social trust.
I still can't tell if you're stupid, or lazy, or dishonest.
I would never use a term 'social value' because it's a meaningless justificationary via-positiva, and Propertariaism is a via-negativa system of thought - we leave goods up to others. That said, in Propertarianism's, Propertarian Ethics, we maximize the suppression of the imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Hence the origin of the 'incremental suppression' meme.
We also start from a different position: I and mine (the strong) want to know why not to kill, enslave, enserf, deprive, tax farm you and yours (the weak). The only reason to do so is if we practice perfect reciprocity. This is called the "Genghis Khan Test". Because that is why he let the people of Peking live. This avoids the Rothbardian fallacies. So this helps explain why Jews have been ... punished ... over a hundred times. Because Jewish ethics are parasitic, and rothbard's ethics are parasitic - it's nothing other than free riding.
We also start from a different (truthful) position: that Crusoe's island is a metaphor for the Ghetto, with the seas providing the walls. Whereas, all people evolved in groups and property evolved as the division of labor evolved, and produced advances in common property (defense, storage, labor) in concert with the incremental development of private property in the form of tools, then animals, then residences and finally land. So again, rothbard created another wonderful little Jewish fallacy.
We also pass the blackmail test. People will retaliate against you (commit murder) for blackmailing them. Yet this is a voluntary exchange. Same for specializing in prostitution, selling alcohol and drugs on credit, selling gambling money on credit, setting usurious prices for credit to bait people into hazard so their property can be seized.
Rothbardian ethics - at least on the surface - appear fine to well intentioned western fools. But their purpose is to obscure the means of profiting from ghetto ethics, by free riding on the commons of others, profiting from baiting people into hazard, and using those profits to extract rents from them - usually via the state. "Liber-tards are Useful Idiots in the Middle Class, like Communists were for the Underclasses". You fell for it.
Hogeye Bill: This is not to say that reciprocists do not value non-aggression, or that libertarians do not value social trust.
I think I've bludgeoned your straw man to death by now, but no, we don't value trust. We value the suppression of the imposition of costs against the demonstrated interest of our people, especially those of immigration(undesirables), conversion (islam), corruption(low trust people), baiting into hazard (marxism, postmodernism, libertarianism, feminism, denialism) all of which were designed for the single purpose of undermining class cooperation in the production of both private and common between the classes of vastly different genetics, abilities, families, resources, and knowledge.
Hogeye Bill: It is clear that Doolittle has a very authoritarian State in mind
It's clear that I have, and mankind has, because this is a purely empirical analysis of how people behave and prefer others behave toward them: that this proposes RULE OF LAW, not authoritarianism., And that under that rule of law, we maximize the ability of people like you rothbard others to impose costs on others demonstrated interests whenever those interests are false and or irreciprocal.
This is why Propertarianism is EMPIRICAL and OPERATIONAL (scientific and Existentially possible), Hoppe's Anarcho Capitalism is argued as KANTIAN RATIONALISM (sophism), and Rothbard's Libertarianism is JewISH PILPUL (Sophism). And if you understood my work you'd know that the grammar (logic, vocabulary, and internally consistent paradigm of continuous recursive disambiguation) that any person argues with belies his attempt at deception at worst, and at best (hoppe and rothbard's case) they are merely following their traditional means of argument that evolved for different kinds of lying (kantian rationalism, Jewish pilpul and critique.)
- This one kills me as the dumbest thing so far on:
Hogeye Bill: Reciprocism gives us a very subjective collectivist notion of property as whatever people are willing to defend.
Um. It just says that in matters of dispute courts worldwide and across all civilizations across all time resolve matters of conflict by tests of demonstrated interest given the current, necessary, allocation of discretion over the use of property in the given time, place, and economy. (ie: cows are sacred, hands must be washed). So yes it is what people demonstrate that they will retaliate (use violence or worse) against you for.
Now, wtf is 'intersubjectively verifiable property" if not an arbitrary definition of property selected soley for the purpose of denying third party intermediaries, and denying the production of commons, and licensing blackmail, selling harms, selling fraud absent warranty, false promise baiting into hazard, free riding upon others commons parsitically extracting from them ... and the whole Jewish christian, muslim and whole marxist, cultural marxist, postmodern, libertarian, neocon, feminist, denialist movement to destroy the market for cooperation between the classes?
Hogeye Bill: The political program of the Constitution of Nationalist Reciprocism is to put all government decision-making power into the hands of the Supreme Court. That’s it! Give all power to the supreme court and let them decide what truth is.
No, it's to use the court system to deny any and all the ability to impose costs on the demonstrated interests others - therefore as a result to create markets for the production of association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war.
- You know, you have no way out other than to say you want the ability to parasitically extract from others., That's the only thing you can argue for. ... Throughout history, every time we have incrementally suppressed some form of theft, like now, those who are practicing thieves resist. ... And we do it anyway and they invent new ways of thieving. But like any technology thieving improves and the law improves, and the beauty of the common law, is that the minute you are convicted of a new form of theft it is now law, that immediately prohibits that form of thieving - all without government or state intervention.
This is correct. Rothbardian libertarian property is defined as "intersubjectively verifiable property". The purpose of this limitation is to prohibit common property like Marx and the communists prohibited private property. In other words, Rothbard is trying the case as moral, Jewish "Ghetto Ethics" so that he can legitimize the Jewish tradition of free riding on the institutions and commons of host people, and not integrate and pay the costs of norms traditions, institutions, or commons where all agrarian peoples MUST produce commons and all people with fixed capital must also produce commons. This is why Rothbard was a middle class Marxist of private property, like Marx was an underclass Marxist of common property, and the neocons were upperclass Marxists of political and institutional property.
- You're trying to steal a name I deliberately chose for my work and my movement, and you (lied?) that this wasn't my first use (homesteading).
- You created a straw man that our interest is a via positive good, rather than a via negative good: suppression of imposition of costs upon our demonstrated interests. I think this is dead now.
- You engaged in the rather hard to believe contradiction that people do not produce, need, want, and violently defend demonstrated intersets in commons - especially the commons of several (private), kin, material, shareholder, commons, institutional, capital monumental, and territorial property.
- You misrepresented Locke and Hoppe.
- You engaged in sophistry of categorization by trying to taint common interest prohibiting consumption with collectivism and equidistribution.
- You correctly identified that libertarian and ancap intersubjectively verifiable property is a limit - but didn't didn't state it was arbitrary, nor apparently did you know that the reason for this is so that rothbard's Jewish ghetto ethics could be equated to traditional european ethics of rule of law of reciprocity by the same sophomoric means you used to attempt to conflate commons with collectivism.
- You are stuck with justifying then why you should have the ability to engage in, or why you can even claim it's moral, that you should be able to engage in blackmail, unwarrantied trade, false promise, free riding, and a thousand other means of imposing upon the demonstrated interests others, and why they shouldn't - as they always do -run you out of town for the parasitic vagrant that you are clearly attempting to justify.
Rights don't exist. Rights are made. They are made by the production of commons. Period.
Hopefully you have wasted enough of my time. But malinvestment in Rothbardianism like any other false promise of free riding that the Jews have come up with whether theological, sophistry, or pseudoscience, 'stick' because they cause an addiction response.
Sometimes I can cure the addict with truth.
Sometimes I can't.
Thanks for answering, Curt.
Curt Doolittle: Bill (a) argues a straw man ... that we're measuring trust, rather than the imposition of costs on demonstrated interests.
You are giving a false dichotomy here - that reciprocists want to measure trust or not impose costs. Actually, maximizing trust is a major part of your program to not impose costs. Here are some or your own words:
Curt Doolittle: “The degree of trust determines economic velocity: wealth, Secure, and extensive Property rights, that suppress free riding, such that all are required to contribute to production, rather than survive off of parasitism, create trust: the ability to take risks, and to increase the velocity of production and trade, by reducing transaction costs.
The level of trust corresponds directly to the degree of suppression of free riding created by the scope of prohibition of property rights, enforceable under law.
The economic velocity of an economy corresponds directly to the degree of trust formed in a polity by the legal enforcement of property rights.”
Curt Doolittle: “Either a group can defend itself against destructive, parasitic and predatory competitors or it can’t. Groups compete. They compete by the means available to them. And groups learn to exploit every possible niche, from the most high trust, innovative, and productive, to the most low trust, parasitic, and destructive.”
Curt Doolittle: “Corporatism, or, rather, the ability to create high trust commons, and to specialize in an activity on behalf of the village or town.”
Curt Doolittle: “We have chosen to reform the existing Constitution of the United States of America in continuation of the group strategy and political strategy of the European Peoples, and in particular the Northern European peoples, so that we may preserve the disproportionate utility of the strategy of the European peoples, and the Anglo-American third-way of a rapidly adapting, middle class majority, commons-producing, nuclear-family, high-trust civilization and its civil society.”
Curt Doolittle: (b) [Hogeye Bill] never answers the questions I propose for clarification.”
The questions seemed frivolous and not relevant. They were an attempt at getting me off on a red herring, so I did not answer them.
Curt Doolittle: (c) and is copying the 'leftist' game of 'term appropriation': There only one libertarianism (rothbard) and one Propertarianism (mine), but both systems were criticized as 'propertarian' which was an insult, and why I chose it. Evidence in image attached. I registered the domain names and the trademark. Why? It wasn't in use anywhere.”
LOL! You claim to have coined the word “propertarianism???” How ridiculous! I have been using it for years, and so have libertarians.
propertarianism (uncountable) - (politics, libertarianism)
The libertarian philosophy that promotes contractual relationships made voluntarily, as opposed to government-imposed ones.
1974, Marcus Cunliffe, The right to property: a theme in American history, Sir George Watson lecture delivered in the University of Leicester, 4 May 1973:"Faced with the dilemmas of democratic 'propertarianism', which have indeed not been fully [...]"
1999, Eben Moglen, Anarchism Triumphant: Free Software and the Death of Copyright:"Propertarianism joined to capitalist vigor destroyed meaningful commercial competition, but when it came to making good software, anarchism won."
2015, Eleanor Robertson, “The Herschel backpack: how Generation Y carries capitalism's mythologies”, in The Guardian:Put most famously by John Locke, homesteading is central to anarcho-capitalism, rights-based libertarianism, and propertarianism.- Wictionary
d) Locke, Rothbard, Hoppe, and virtually all libertarians believe that property must be scarce/rivalrous. Yes, even Locke, who wrote specifically about scarcity in his proviso, and implied it elsewhere. Also, Locke, Rothbard, Hoppe, and I all agree that some sufficient labor is required for homesteading. This is true for scarcity property. Locke did not say this about your “demonstrated property” since it doesn’t make sense to own imaginary non-rivalrous ideas, beliefs, recipes, theorems, or interests.
e) "Libertarian property is very narrow in scope." "This is correct.”
We agree on this! I of course do not agree with your ad hominem fallacy that libertarianism is incorrect because Rothbard suffered under some Jewish delusion. Your racism is showing through, here. Saying 'wrong because it's ghetto ethics' is lame.
Curt Doolittle: ... free riding on the institutions and commons of host people.
This is the issue - whether the institutions and commons are valid property or not. You beg the question here. Libertarians claim that things like institutions and “feeling safe” and “networks of trust” and “average IQ” are not valid property - just an ugly anti-liberty anti-immigration sentiment.
(f) Bill: "The Doolittle notion of demonstrated property (aka property-in-toto) is more general. It includes sticky property, but also includes individual and group interests, values, sentiments, and beliefs. Since group interests are held to have property status, we can reasonably call this a collectivist notion.”
Curt Doolittle: First you're trying to taint by association.
No, I am simply calling it what it is - a collectivist notion of property. Rather than scarce resources, you want any demonstrated interest of a collective to be considered valid property.
Yes, there is valid common property related to scarce resources, such as stock ownership. But non-scarce things like social trust and average IQ are not scarce resources, ergo not valid property. Your reciprocist notion of property is just like the collectivist notion of property that communists have, except even looser.
I think that the reason you see this as a “contradiction,” Curt, is that you overlook the point that non-scarcity disallows something as valid property.
(g) Bill: "The primary social value for libertarians is non-aggression; the primary social value for reciprocists is maximizing social trust."
Curt> “I still can't tell if you're stupid, or lazy, or dishonest.”
I already covered this is (a). You consider social trust to be a demonstrated property. It is a value you repeatedly cite. I gave numerous quotes of yours to support this.
(h) is the same; you deny your own words on your site that social trust is a demonstrated property.
(j) Bill: "It is clear that Doolittle has a very authoritarian State in mind."
Curt Doolittle: It's clear that I have, and mankind has, because this is a purely empirical analysis of how people behave and prefer others behave toward them: that this proposes rule of law.
But you propose a Supreme Court of a monopoly government, and anarcho-capitalists propose many competing courts so that people have a choice of legal regimes. Since you want a monopoly court, your scheme is authoritarian. Since you would (presumably) not let communities secede from your ethno-State and allow unlimited immigration, your scheme is authoritarian. However, if your scheme is voluntary among property owners, then it can be tried. I believe I’ll stick to the ancap enclaves and avoid your nationalist reciprocist ones!
Curt Doolittle: (k) This one kills me as the dumbest thing so far on:
[Bill wrote] "very subjective collectivist notion of property as ‘whatever people are willing to defend.'" Um. It just says that in matters of dispute courts worldwide and across all civilizations across all time resolve matters of conflict by tests of demonstrated interest given the current, necessary, allocation of discretion over the use of property in the given time, place, and economy.”
This is your Motte and Bailey fallacy. By not admitting that you have a general theory (which is descriptive and applies to all societies) and a specific political program (I dubbed the Constitution of Nationalist Reciprocism), you often attempt to duck objections to your specific program by retreating into your Motte general theory.
You specifically mentioned a network of trust, average IQ, a subjective feeling of safety, and a number of other alleged “properties” that you would defend. When I call you out on it, you duck back into your Motte general theory and say it was only descriptive of all societies. Curt, most societies mainly recognize scarcity property. Sure, there are various dubious demo-properties that have been asserted, but very few. Certainly nothing like social trust or average IQ or feelings of safety. To me, and libertarians everywhere, these are frivolous claims of fake property with zero validity.
(k) Bill: "The political program of the Constitution of Nationalist Reciprocism is to put all government decision-making power into the hands of the Supreme Court. That’s it! Give all power to the supreme court and let them decide what truth is."
Curt Doolittle: No, it's to use the court system to deny any and all the ability to impose costs on the demonstrated interests others.
Yes, by using a monopoly court. As I’ve noted, if your plan was a voluntary system where like-minded people could create a proprietary community with your strict reciprocity rules restraining interactions, that would be fine. But the assumption in your papers is that you are taking over the US or some other nation-state and imposing your collectivist view of demo-property on everyone.
- You did not “homestead” the term “propertarianism.” I’ll bet I used it before you ever did. It is amusing that you think registering the term with the evil State gives you ownership.
- You would suppress the imposition of costs by inventing counterfeit property, such as a property in things like social trust, average IQ, and feelings of safety.
- People do sometimes defend interests that are not valid property, and people have done so in the past. The issue is whether your social trust, average IQ, etc. are valid properties. Since they are not scarce/rivarous resources, they are not.
- Locke and Hoppe and me and Rothbard all believe(d) that valid property must be scarce. You tried to misrepresent Locke.
- You tried to distract from your collectivist notion of property with an irrelevant red herring - that that implies “equidistribution.”
- Defining property as usage of scarce resources is NOT “arbitrary” as you claim. It is the main philosophical theory regarding property. Cf: Entitlement Theory. Your anti-semitic disparagement of Rothbard is of course irrelevant (though it may work on your racist followers.)
- Explaining blackmail, unwarrantied trade, false promises wrt valid contracts, and free riding are all explained by libertarian theory. Look in “The Ethics of Liberty” by Rothbard. I would be happy to explain these to you.
One major problem with the reciprocist obsession with free-riding is that it necessitates massive government aggression against society. If someone broadcasts a good - a positive externality - then anyone should be free to enjoy it. If you are producing the broadcast good, then don’t expect government jackboots to collect for you! The idea that enjoying a positive externality should be outlawed is totally ridiculous to me.
Hogeye Bill: I’ll bet I used it before you ever did. It is amusing that you think registering the term with the evil State gives you ownership.
Well if you'll bet, then how much, and what evidence can you present to back your case?
Hogeye Bill: 2. You would suppress the imposition of costs by inventing counterfeit property, such as a property in things like social trust, average IQ, and feelings of safety.
- Demonstrated interest is existential: "demonstrated" - a truth. It's not a choice, opinion, or preference. Any OTHER definition is a choice, preference or opinion. In other words any other choice is arbitrary.
- You have to arbitrarily choose something other than demonstrated interest. (This is how Abrahamic Pilpul is used to create an internally consistent set of justificationary lies - and of course you fell for it.)
- Humans can't know scarcity, only demonstrated interest. Look up the origin of the concept of scarcity.
- Humans only know objective demonstration of interest and subjective value. Humans could only have evolved identification of value, demonstrated interest, and subjective value. We can't know scarcity only ignorance.
- Any attempt to refute my position is an attempt to refute subjective value, and you would have a very hard time doing that. ;)
- Humans can't avoid conflict by simply being ignorant of the resources necessary to demonstrate an interest something, we can only avoid conflict by knoweldge that others have used resources to demonstrate an interest, and continue to demonstrate that interest.
- What you are missing is (a) scarcity of a good is a circular reasoning. (b) that demonstrated interest is the scarcity, (b) that cooperation is the ultimate scarcity, (c) that reciprocity (non imposition against demonstrated interest) is the only means of preserving that cooperation. (d) that those who impose costs upon demonstrated interests are the only source of conflict over the POTENTIAL to obtain returns on one's demonstrated interests.
- Your opinion on what imposition of costs upon their demonstrated interests does not matter to others or the headman, counsel, court that must resolve conflicts when demonstrated interest is always and everywhere the means of decidability. In other words, you can try to advocate for leaving open the possibility of parasitism upon and harm against others, but it doesn't mean anything to others, it's just a lie you and yours tell yourselves to try to justify parasitism upon others and harm against others intersets. Morality is what other people won't harm or kill you for, and the only reason not to harm or kill you is the value of your cooperation versus non-cooperation, uncooperative-competition, free riding, parasitism, predation upon anything that the use whatsoever to create and preserve their returns on cooperation. In other words, it doesn't matter what you think - it matters what others do and you can negotiate for survival with them. (This is why I use science not justificationary pilpul like Jewish rothbard and Jewish-trained Hoppe.
Hoppe is trying to restore free cities but to do so by free riding on on other's states. Rothbard is trying to restore Jewish separatism by free riding on the same states. They're both trying to justify free riding. There is only one source of determining your rights: the use of organized violence at personal risk to deny others the alternative. The problem is that the only way to hold territory and population is with economic production hence the universal creation of increasingly suppressive laws against parasitism in every empire so that economic velocity is highest, and returns highest, and therefore military capacity highest. )
- I do science. Y'all do pilpul (sophistry). Jewish sophistry (pilpul and critique, GSRRM, false promise, baiting into hazard) is the most sophisticated form of deception yet invented by man, just as science is the most sophisticated form of truthful testimony invented by man. There are many means of lying by sophistry, including numerology, astrology, pseudoscience, theology, but the means of lying without appeal to anything external to language is Sophism. The reason it's effective - weaving internal consistentcy out of self referentiality - is because it does not, like science, appeal to reality for closure (decidability). Instead the technique seeks to overwhelm (overload) reason (modeling) causing an appeal to moral intuition. Once you understand it's just a technique of deception that like any other techique that can be mastered, it's relatively easy to identify. The problem is untangling the self-referentiality rather than modeling the consequences in reality - which is what it seeks to undermine.
Anyway. I don't err. We all make mistakes. I very rarely err. And since this is my primary line of research I certainly don't err in this case. I can't. The science says so.
Curt Doolittle: 1. Demonstrated interest is existential: "demonstrated" - a truth.
So far, you have it right. Continuing on, a demonstrated interest is not valid property. You are suggesting treating mere demonstrated interest as valid property, imposing costs on those holding actual scarcity property.
Curt Doolittle: 2. You have to arbitrarily choose something other than demonstrated interest.
I choose scarcity property as valid on the basis of entitlement theory philosophy. You choose demonstrated interest “property” not quite arbitrarily, since it is obvious that your purpose is to justify kidnapping immigrants and using the State to forcibly promote western culture. Nationalist Reciprocism is a type of culture statism.
Curt Doolittle: 3. Humans can't know scarcity, only demonstrated interest. Look up the origin of the concept of scarcity.
False. I have already stipulated that we are talking about scarcity in the economic sense of rivalrousness. I won’t fall for your dictionary fallacy.
Curt Doolittle: 4. Humans only know objective demonstration of interest and subjective value. Humans could only have evolved identification of value, demonstrated interest, and subjective value.
Only??? False. Humans also evolved notions of property rights, including sticky property, possession property, collective property, geoist property, and so on.
Curt Doolittle: 5. Any attempt to refute my position is an attempt to refute subjective value.
False. Obviously. I have refuted your position without any reference to subjective value. We libertarians also hold the STV. We agree with you about subjective value.
Curt Doolittle: 6. Humans can't avoid conflict by simply being ignorant of the resources necessary to demonstrate an interest something ...
Curt Doolittle: We can only avoid conflict by knowledge that others have used resources to demonstrate an interest.
False. Again with the fallacious “only.” There are many ways to avoid conflict. One of them that has worked splendidly is to recognize (scarcity) property rights. You’ll be happy to know that Western Culture has been pretty good at defining property rights, coming up with ethical justifications, and (perhaps most notably) expanding property rights to the masses.
So, (in 7) you are completely wrong when you write, “reciprocity (non-imposition against demonstrated interest) is the only means of preserving that cooperation.” There are many other, more logical and more moral, means.
You repeat your false “only way” claim in (8) when you say, “demonstrated interest is always and everywhere the means of decidability.” No, it is a means, not the means. Perhaps you realize that demo-property is a rather poor means for deciding disputes, and that is why you repeatedly claim falsely that it is the only means. You want to avoid comparison with strict property legal regimes. You don’t want to acknowledge that the strict property regimes were more prosperous and moral than collectivist “common” property regimes.
I notice that you use parasitism as a pejorative, without a rational justification or definition. From context, it seems to mean receiving benefits without paying something for them. To libertariains like me, that is perfectly okay so long as you do not engage in aggression, i.e. violate someone’s (scarcity) property rights. To reciprocists, walking by a neighbor’s garden and smelling the flowers is parasitic freeloading. Ridiculous! Reciprocists apparently think listening to broadcast radio without paying is parasitic. Libertarians do not. Instead we invent a public bad (advertising) to attach to the public good (content) and then distribute the good for free to the public. (Getting revenue from advertisers.) In a reciprocist world, you’d have courts charging people for stealing broadcast airwaves!
Curt Doolittle: Hoppe is trying to restore free cities but to do so by free riding on on other's states.
Very revealing! This tells me that you are against secession, and you want the evil US State to remain intact. Any attempt to secede would be “free riding” on your Holy State. Before any secession, you would let the State being seceded from name its own price (using its own Supreme Court) to compensate for infrastructure and whatever they decided was owed. The expected result: No one will be allowed to secede. “Free-riding” is so subjective.
Curt Doolittle: 9. I do science. Y'all do pilpul (sophistry). Jewish sophistry ...
Your lame “I’m right and you’re wrong, because (anti-semitic spiel)” is contemptible.
Libertarian legal theory holds that bald promises are not a valid contract, thus lies related to them are not crimes. It is only a crime if it is a force substitute like theft by stealth or fraud. We do not want government goons examining every claim to see if it satisfies the ideal conditions of reciprocity. We say caveat emptor.
Geoff, a friend of mine, asked me what I thought of the video
Propertarianism in 20 Minutes. Here are my comments.
Propertarianism in 20 Minutes
“Do this one thing and your nation or group will have prosperity and peace.”
Note the goal is not liberty, nor prosperity, nor peace, but prosperity for some in-group called “your nation.” Thus, unless “your nation” is your primary political value, propertarianism is not for you. Libertarians, who’s primary value is liberty, and utilitarians who’s primary value is peace and prosperity for everyone, are rather disgusted by the (to us) braindead tribalism assumed to be a good thing by the “propertarians.” Anyway, you should definitely make note of this flaghumping nationalism that is simply assumed to be the primary value.
“What is the one thing we need to do? Enforce reciprocity in all interactions … within your nation or group.”
Notice that the notion of reciprocity is not tied down here. In a communist group, reciprocity would be interpreted through exploitation theory and communal property lens, but in a capitalist society reciprocity would be through a free market sticky property lens. This is what might be called the General Theory of Reciprocity. It could apply to any society, any econoomic system, and any set of perceived “demonstrated property,” no matter how rational or irrational.
- fully informed
- no negative externalities
As I said in my essay refuting Reciprocism, the five conditions of reciprocity are way too strict to be compulsory for all transactions. Hardly any transactions would be done in real life, and virtually all transactions could be challenged. Enforcement of the five criteria would bring trade to a halt, or create a tyrannical court that allows and disallows transactions based on political or other considerations. In short, while the list is a good list of goals for a perfect transaction, in real life they rarely all hold. Some are virtually impossible, e.g. how can one know, let alone prove, that everyone you deal with is “fully informed?” You can’t. Libertarians have only two required conditions - that the transaction be voluntary and that there be no negative externalities.
Anyway, I covered all this in my essay.