Tired: NAP, Wired: NPP

Tired: The Non-Aggression Principle

From the Social Justice Encyclopedia, but still an acceptable definition:

The non-aggression principle (NAP) (also called the non-aggression axiom, or the anti-coercion or zero aggression principle or non-initiation of force) is an ethical principle that forbids actions that are inconsistent with libertarianism’s conception of property rights and other rights. The principle asserts that violation of these rights is “aggression“. NAP advocates deem violation of such rights to be a wrongful “initiation of force” by one party against another. The principle is a deontological (or rule-based) ethical stance. The NAP is considered by its supporters to be a defining principle of libertarianism.[1][2][3][4] The NAP conception of aggression is dependent on and closely linked to a particular conception of property rights, since aggression in this context is defined by what a person’s property rights are.[5] Because the principle defines aggression in libertarian terms, use of the NAP as a justification for libertarianism has been criticized as circular reasoning.[6]

The NAP is an exercise in circular reasoning (tautology). It depends on a definition of property rights which must first be accepted. This is axiomatic thinking, which is the root of any logical system. The problem with logical systems? They are purely conceptual, they are merely models, which may or may not have any reference back to reality (empirical content).

In a math problem we start with certain axiomatic rules, such as the order of operations and the logical operations themselves, then we say “let X = 5″ and we can construct a logical proof that a certain set of operations will yield a consistent result.  The problem? Well, if X changes from 5 to 7 in the middle of the operation, then it fails. How can X change from 5 to 7? If you’ve ever written code then you have probably made the beginner mistake of referencing a global variable in a function, in which case X may then be modified outside of the scope of the local function. So, you think X = 5, but somewhere else, while you aren’t looking, X becomes 7 and your perfectly logical function fails.

In this software example, the function is logically correct, provided that X does not change due to an outside force. In other words, the model works correctly, until it is tested empirically, in which case it can fail. This is the central problem of the NAP, the model doesn’t work in the real world (it cannot survive empirical criticism).

The axiomatic basis of the NAP is the conception of property, as though property is real, as opposed to merely being an norm, or an agreement of behavior. I explain this fully in the post Property and Norms. The NAP depends upon the Lockean Labor Theory of Property, which asserts that an object becomes property once a human homesteads it or mixes his labor with nature. What is the mechanism of the transmutation of an object into property? No one knows. How does the labor mix itself with nature? Are there atomic bonds which are broken and reformed during this process? No idea. Feasibly, it could be the same mechanism that powers transubstantiation: the change of substance by which the bread and the wine offered in the sacrifice of the sacrament of the Eucharist during the Mass, become, in reality, the body and blood of Jesus Christ. Or maybe it is the same process by which ancient alchemists could transmute lead into gold. Who knows? No libertarian alive can explain exactly how this process occurs, without in essence resorting to magic.

That’s how we know the NAP is tired.

Wired: The Non-Parasitism Principle

Curt Doolittle faceberg twitter has never used this phrase (to my knowledge), it’s one of my own invention. I use it because I think it might be a useful bridge from Libertarianism to Propertarianism. An essential approach of the Propertarian method is to start from observable phenomena (empiricism) and work out from there.

From The Cure for Propaganda and Western Civilization:

Science currently warranties speech by requiring the following tests, that demonstrate we are not adding imaginary or allegorical content, to our statements:

1) External Correspondence (we can observe the phenomenon)
2) Internal Consistency (logical)
2.1) Identity : The Logic of Naming
2.2) Mathematics: The logic of relations
2.3) Physics: the logic of causation
2.4) Logic: the logic of language
3) Operationally defined (existentially possible)
4) Falsified (parsimonious)

The Labor Theory of Property fails on tests 1, 3 and 4. However, do notice that the LTP passes #2, it is logically consistent. It just happens to not be externally correspondent.

#1: We cannot observe the transmutation of an object into property.

#3: Because we cannot observe the operation, we cannot define the operation by which objects are transmuted into property.

#4: How is the LTP to be falsified? I don’t think it can be. How do you falsify the existence of an operation which cannot be observed? This is like trying to prove that God doesn’t exist.

What is the Non-Parasitism Principle?

The argument works like this:

  1. Living beings require resources to survive and reproduce.
  2. Living beings, given the choice between defending a required resource, or death, will choose to defend (conflict, violence) that which is required for survival and reproduction.
  3. Humans working in cooperation (conflict minimized) are able to produce more resources (which may be consumed for the purposes of survival and reproduction), than humans working separately (division of labor) or humans in conflict.
  4. Humans have an incentive to maintain the benefits of cooperation, and thus to discover mechanisms which maintain cooperation and to teach these mechanisms to others within a cooperative group (tradition, culture, norms).
  5. Parasitism (theft, fraud, murder, etc.) destroys the incentive to cooperate, which has the result of decreasing the benefits of cooperation within a group.
  6. The norm of non-parasitism, when discovered, disseminated and enforced maintains the incentive to cooperate and thus is a competitive advantage to those groups which implement the norm.

The NAP essentially states that it is morally wrong to aggress against another’s property, where property is some holy, magical thing that shall not be violated. The NPP essentially states that the the Norm of Property (non-parasitism) provides a competitive advantage to groups that maintain the norm, therefore there is an incentive to maintain the norm. Nothing magical to it.

In essence, the NAP and the NPP are similar, with the exception that the NPP yields a greatly expanded portfolio of capital (property) which must not be parasitized. The goal of the NAP is similar: to maintain group cooperation, but it’s simply a rationalization which is used to advocate for certain behavior (non-aggression), and it is fundamentally flawed because it depends on magical thinking.

The NPP has the advantage of being scientifically (testimonially) and biologically correct. It’s time to break magically thinking about property and rights, and learn that these are merely norms, traditions and culture (contracts).

Property and Norms

From Cultures Are Portfolios Of Property Rights:

Cultures are portfolios of property rights. The composition of, and distribution of those property rights, varies from culture to culture. In each culture, those rights are expressed as norms. Property rights themselves are a norm. Those property rights perpetuated by norms may be more or less beneficial than other portfolios of property rights.

But any idiot who thinks that (a) formal institutions don’t matter – such as libertarians or (b) that formal institutions are sufficient – such as progressives, will have history prove him wrong to the chagrin of the people who understand (c) that norms are a form of property – conservatives. Norms are a commons that we all pay for. The tax we pay for them with is forgone opportunity to consume them, and absorbing the risk that no others will absorb them too.

One of the most difficult problems I have  when attempting to discuss Propertarianism is property. What is it? I want to get across two important ideas here: Property is a Norm and Norms are Property.

Property is a Norm

This may not seem intuitive to you. After all, an apple is property. It exists. You can touch it, you can trade it. We call this ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’: that which we can all subjectively verify that it exists. Given this common understanding of physical property, such as an apple, this leads one to scratch his head and ask “How can an apple be a norm?”. That just doesn’t make sense.

Let’s look at it from another perspective. What if that apple were on the Moon. Would it then be property? Not really. No-one owns the moon. No-one owns the apple. Therefore it is not property. So we see there is actually a difference between the apple and property. An apple is an apple, but it may or may not be property. What’s the difference? It’s how we treat it. If we treat it as property, then it’s property. You see, an apple becomes property through an act of human behavior.

What’s a norm? “Norms are cultural products (including values, customs, and traditions)”

Customs and traditions are behavior which are the result of values. An apple becomes property through social behavior (custom/tradition). An apple on the moon isn’t property. An apple on a grocer’s shelf is property. The difference? The presence of humans behaving in a certain way.

What is the norm (the behavior, the custom or tradition) that we call property? The norm is ‘non-parasitism’ (Thou Shalt Not Steal). Group cooperation is valuable to us, and in order to maintain group cooperation we have a rule of non-parasitism: each person will produce what he needs and not take what others have produced.

In nature, the strong take from the weak, and a state of nature is a state of war (Hobbes). War is not cooperation, it is conflict. You have an apple and I have a rock. I hit you on the head with my rock and take the apple. That’s nature. But that destroys cooperation, and cooperation magnifies our production, so we build rules to preserve this cooperation. We then teach these rules to our children and enforce them. These rules are norms of behavior.

Once we create the norm of non-parasitism within a group (a laborious process), then all forms of theft are barred (by custom/tradition). So, now you have an apple and I want the apple but I can’t steal it (per our norm), so we negotiate a deal, a trade. Under the norm of non-parasitism, trade is the only mechanism remaining by which we can (knowingly) transfer objects to one another. Any object which is transferred in this system (of the norm of non-parasitism) is property. The system of trades within which we transfer these objects is called a market.

When non-parasitism is the rule, then the trading of objects (property in a market) is the only thing that is left. So, property only exists as an act of a social norm: non-parasitism. Property is a norm of behavior, not a physically measurable attribute. When we refer to property, we are really referring to property rights, and all rights originate in contract (agreement). Therefore property = property right = contract = agreement (of reciprocal behavior) = norm of behavior.

As an aside, it should also be clear that non-parasitism (the norm), property (the objects) and markets (the method of transfer) are all different ways to look at the same thing. There can be no markets without property. There can be no property without the norm of non-parasitsm.

Norms are Property

Once you understand that property is not a real thing, but instead is nothing more than an agreement of human behavior, a norm, then we can take the next step to understanding an expanded portfolio of human capital.

The process of discovering the rules of cooperation which then magnify production to yield prosperity for a group (values), and the process of transferring these rules (customs and traditions) within the group (horizontally) and through time (vertically/(intergenerationally ) is not free. The acquisition and transfer occurs only at a high cost. Allowing children to roam free is cheap (in the short term), educating (domesticating) them is expensive (in the short term) but yields long term benefits in increased group cooperation. Domesticating every man, woman and child is expensive.

The loss of this norm of non-parasitism (corruption, theft, fraud) is costly both to individuals and also to the group as cooperation is disrupted. Therefore, protecting property rights (remember, rights are a contract within a group) means protecting a norm: non-parasitism.

There are other norms which have beneficial long-term outcomes and which have been propagated (horizontally) throughout groups and (vertically) through time. Monogamy and marriage are such a norm. I’ll refer to monogamy/marriage as marriage, which is a set of social norms which were developed to regulate the obligations and responsibilities attendant upon procreation. Females, when given the opportunity, will breed with the highest ranking males (status) that they can attract, and will offload the cost of resulting offspring onto the group. Prior to the modern welfare state, this would have been family members with primarily the woman’s father and brothers providing resources for the offspring. Gestation, lactation and child rearing are resource-intensive activities which generally a single female cannot perform, thus requiring group cooperation. When a male produces offspring, but does not provide the necessary resources, then he is externalizing the cost of his own reproduction onto others. The creation of externalities (imposition of cost) are a form of parasitism. Thus, the norm of marriage is an extension of the norm of non-parasitism with regards to the activity of procreation.

The destruction of the norm of marriage (single motherhood financed through the redistributive welfare state) allows for the imposition of cost via externality upon men (taxpayers) who do not receive the benefit of having their genes propagated (gene propagation is the ultimate purpose of acquisition/production). It also creates a host of other costs to the group via propagation of social pathologies which are associated with the children of single mothers (dysgenia).

In the case of the norm of property rights and marriage there is a reduction in parasitism which is achieved, which maximizes cooperation and has other beneficial long term effects. This means that norms are capital, a form of property. They are expensive to discover, propagate and maintain, and their destruction imposes costs (or reduces benefits). For this reason, humans will defend norms, customs and traditions in exactly the same way, and for the same reason, that they defend physical property. Therefore, norms are property.

The portfolio of human capital includes not only physical objects, but also norms of behavior (customs and traditions which transfer values). Property is a norm, and norms are property.

Aristocratic Egalitarianism

A collection of Facebook posts and Propertarianism.com links which explain ‘Aristocratic Egalitarianism’.

From Eli Harman faceberg twitter:

If you would be free, you must fight.
If you would win, you must confederate.
If you would confederate, you must compromise.
If you would compromise, you must accept limits on your freedom.

Freedom will be won only by those who desire to exercise it within limits considered reasonable by their fellows.

From Curt Doolittle faceberg twitter:

A ROSE BY ANY OTHER NAME: ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM AND PROPERTARIANISM

—“Q&A: Curt, How Do We Refer To Your Work: Propertarianism or Aristocratic Egalitarianism”—

In my view (which may or may not be right) I have written down in rational and scientific terms, the western group evolutionary strategy – the philosophy of the west.

But it’s a very big scope of work. So what you call it depends upon which perspective you’re looking at it from. Culturally and civilizationally, it’s the philosophy of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. a set of values: Aristocratic, and the criteria for membership: open to anyone who will fight.

But if we are to ask what operations and processes do we use within aristocratic egalitarianism that refers to The metaphysics of action, Testimonial Truth and Epistemology, Propertarian Ethics, Market Government, and Aristocratic Ethics (excellence in man).

To make things ‘simple’ for people to understand we use the term ‘Propertarianism’ as a shortcut, even though that only technically refers to the ethical component of Aristocratic Egalitarianism.

We have debated using Testimonialism in order to place truth above property, but this term borders on the platonic, so we prefer the ‘real’ – propertarianism as a ‘common’ name for philosophical arguments that constitute the cultural strategy of the western indo European people we call Aryans: Aristocratic Egalitarianism.

So that’s the full explanation.

Aristocratic Egalitarianism

by  on MONDAY, JUNE 29TH, 2015  |  1 Comment   |

To say that European Aristocracy is Egalitarian is somewhat of a tautology.  An aristocracy requires numbers, and has an interest in creating large numbers in a hierarchy of aristocratic peers.  So aristocracy is egalitarian – open to meritocratic entry

Links

http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/04/27/propertarianism-and-aristocratic-egalitarianism/

Rock-Paper-Scissors and Fascism

Graphic provided by Curt Doolittle.

12715327_10153933737572264_2058800666285009976_n

In effect, the graphic above represents the Trichotomy or Significant Triangles or the Three Estates of the Realm that I posted about in February of 2015 in Significant Triangles, and which I expanded up in Triangle: Human Drives on my PoseidonAwoke blog. I plan on doing a comprehensive wrap-up to this discussion in a later post, because, as usual, Curt has distilled and surpassed my muddled thinking on the subject.

Each of the Three Estates of the Realm represents a division of labor and cognition. Each living being must play to its strengths in pursuit of survival and reproduction. Humans will naturally do this, advocating using their strengths for the outcome they wish to achieve which they perceive to serve their genetic self-interests.

12694639_10153933737597264_7797113542373338146_o

Curt wrote:

FASCISM IN THE GREAT GAME OF ROCK PAPER SCISSORS:
–Liberty/Market, Fascism/Mar, Law/Culture–

The Communist threat was enormous.

Given the asymmetric value of opportunity costs, NOT ACTING in era of change is expensive.

So taking early initiative or waiting is a question of forecast costs.

And fascism was an answer to acting early.

A condition of liberty is the consequence of the nearly universal suppression of parasitism.

But just as soldiers compete, norms compete, and markets compete: *Rock-Paper-Scissors applies*.

One cannot fight soldiers with markets:Rock-Paper-Scissors. There is no steady state in econ or out.

There is no permanent condition of liberty possible any more than is a permanent condition of war.

Rock paper scissors: Liberty/Market, Fascism/War, Law/Culture.

Simple people use simple models. But while simple people use simple models it is up to us to explain the much more complicated world.

And that most complicated world consists not of steady states,but of supply,demand,rents,and shocks.

Facism is not a model, it is a tool with which we seek the optimum state of liberty, law, peace.

Monopoly institutions are not a steady state but a means of paying for the suppression of local rent.

Rule of law is not a steady state but a tool for the suppression of innovations in parasitism.

That we have yet failed to create an institution for suppressing centralized rents is just a failure.

Anarchism cannot do this, so the alternative is market production of commons.

Because commons are necessary even for the production of property rights, rule of law and territory.

And surprisingly, it turns out that commons free of privatization, are devastatingly competitive.

So, these are the rules of the Rock-Paper-Scissors of Fascism  (Liberty/Market, Fascism/War, Law/Culture):

War smashes Markets
Culture obviates War
Markets dissolve Culture

or, using the other set of words provided by Curt

Fascism smashes Liberty
Law obviates Fascism
Liberty undermines Law

What this game is explaining is that we have a 3-axis supply and demand between the 3 major divisions of cognition and labor. As we get an over supply of Liberty/Markets (which exceeds the ability for Law/Culture to order properly as the society rapidly changes), we create a demand for Fascism/War/Authority. As we get an oversupply of Fascism/War/Athority (which slows or destroys Liberty/Markets [commerce] and stabilizes society) we create a demand for Law/Culture which can replace arbitrary martial law. As we get an oversupply of Law/Culture (where we have a strongly ordered and stable society, with a slower moving economy), we create a demand for Liberty/Markets.

Liberty undermines Law – An increase in Liberty (voluntary organization of production, markets) increases the points at which parasitism can occur which then places a stress on Law and Culture to identify and eliminate the new modes of parasitism.

Authoritarian (fascism, Asiatic despotism) societies seek to reduce opportunities for the invention of new forms of parasitism by attempting to freeze modes of production (non-liberty)(must ask permission before acting) in order to alleviate the stress that it causes on the system of Law and Culture.

Therefore, if cultural upheaval is too great and Rule of Law is being undermined, which will eventually lead to War and smash all production (extremely high cost), then a period of fascism (authoritarianism) will solidify the Culture and Laws at the expense of reducing the efficiency and fluidity of the markets (lower short term cost outweighs future high cost).

The Trichotomy of Cognition and Labor work together, creating a balance, with oversupply of one division creating demand for the cognition and labor provided by the other corners.

There is fertile ground here for a lot analysis of many historical conditions using this framework. It is my view that the West has exhausted itself with Consumer Capitalism, that we have endured hundreds of years of rapid social change from ever expanding Liberty. Many in the West have come to the conclusion that the portfolio of capital held by the West is no longer served by further increases in Liberty, but will actually be much better served by an increase in Authority (which will curtail Liberty and slow markets) which will all for Law and Culture to recuperate and solidify. In essence, there is now a massive demand for fascism in the West.

To Do: Relationship to Social Cycle Theory., Spengler and the Cyclical View of History

Testimony of Curt’s Work

Curt Doolittle is not always difficult to understand.

He does his very best to distil otherwise very difficult, complicated, complex matters, for didacticism. And so others may possibly read, study, understand, practice, repeat, master, perfect, and use.

He is very charitable, patient, generous with his work. At huge cost to him [ time, energy, resource, reputation ] and to his health [ in times ]. And at minimal to almost no cost to readers, audience, beneficiaries. He is sacrificing a lot, to do this.

And why?

He states it this morning when one abuse him again, albeit needlessly. Primarily because this fellow failed to understand what Curt is saying.

I would try and re-state what Curt said then. So others may understand.

He said that:

There is a clearly distinctive role structure, specialisation, stratification with all men.

That the women bear and rear. Merchants, craftsmen produce. Priests are for advocacy. And the aristocracy, for judgement.

That his focus is on “the other side of the coin”: ARISTOCRACY. And not on the weak, or the ruled.

Ergo he teaches the philosophy of the strong, the best societally, and those at the peak of a given societal structure, sample, group, family, association, corporation, clan, tribe, nation – state, culture, civilisation. Who may have the capacity [ means ], ability, and will to learn, understand, practice, regularise, and enforce it repeatedly, systematically, consistently, effectively, eternally [ domestication, culling of the lower classes. Suppression and elimination of parasitism. Select group transcendence, without cost imposition on others ]

In his work, he is not overly concerned then about the weak that require guidance. Even as he loves all people that must be loved. He is about the strong that must rule. This strong and potential judges, he seeks to show HOW BEST TO RULE in maximum liberty possible.

He therefore seeks, distil to teach, to show the creation of “the privilege of liberty”. AND by which “method of rule” to best “make maximum liberty possible”.

Naturally. His philosophy is neither for the weak nor the periphery of the weak then. It is not a lower class philosophy. Or a middle class philosophy. BUT an upper class philosophy for the meritocratic individuals, assemblage, selection, available in a given location, region, geography, anywhere globally. At any period of human existence. BUT FIRST, FOR HIS PEOPLE. That now are in decline from the attained peak transcendence, civilization.

He does his work PUBLICLY. For whatever criticism there is. Which criticism [ peer review from comparative IQ that may grasp and contribute meaningfully and productively ] he welcomes, engages, and delights in.

The resultant work surviving criticism, for the intended audience that follow it all from the start to the end, or for the newcomer, is source of satisfaction pending possible strict constructions. And for use.

By doing so he is providing a complete, credible, tested, time – surviving leadership framework. Template for the aristocracy that must rule over ALL. And to rule ANY THAT REQUIRE LEADERSHIP, GUIDANCE, INSPIRATION, EMOTIONAL REWARD [ his words ]. Because this are weak, and must necessarily be ruled for the collective benefit of all. Else they over consume, overpopulate, and engage in reckless social experiments that weaken and bring us all to the brink of utter chaos, destruction, annihilation.

He says that any capable individual. Any aristocratic rule, could fall on this. And by it effectively, efficiently exploit the “boundaries” of [ his ] “power”. And obtain the reward, outcome, [ positive ] consequence. Of remaining eternally powerful.

[ In effect. He is in consonance with the Jesus philosophy. And not necessarily traditional Christian church teachings.

The explanation above, in my words, of a comment he made today in explaining his work to another that antagonised him, parallel the rendition of Revelation 20 – 22 of the Christian bible even when Curt isn’t working, using the bible.

Curt is right none the less. Given what empirical data there is, and looking at what is learnable from human history.

The saints with Jesus Christ in Revelation 20. That would and must rule, represent the meritocratic class. The saints with Christ who are to be married or be forever bonded to Christ, were to have qualified and reached the Jesus apotheosis also. They are to qualify by meritocratic standards. By character, to be the best humans harvestable [ many are called, few are chosen ] to RULE.

That aristocracy, would be millennia and then eternally relevant, glorious, and powerful according to the narratives of Revelation 20 to 22 ].

Curt’s aristocratic philosophy in other words, rhyme with the Jesus philosophy. Curt’s is by other methods: propertarianism, testimonialism.

And so science!

Curt seeks accuracy, truth, and completeness. And talk family to tribal = national love togetherness. That bond and engage others in mutually beneficial cooperation.

Or, the strict construction of any law, based on natural law. Jesus talked love, accuracy, truth, and perfection. Such is without doubt what men require for the maximisation of their individual and collective potentials. In productive, profitable, prosperous and sustainably peaceful co – existence.

How then can ANY not see the remarkable, fantastic, and yet achievable products, prognosis Curt crafts, posits, and GENEROUSLY would share with us by words on Facebook. And elsewhere for the utilisation by deserving sheriffs, prosecutors, rulers, judges?

And by extension, for the rule?

by Alexander Brown

You can follow Curt Doolittle on Facebook.