The latest in an interesting interchange with Curt Doolittle: From another fb thread: https://facebook/curt.doolittle/posts/10152365301817264 Curt Doolittle Stephan Kinsella Sorry I didnt respond, but I missed this. 1) --You cant then just argue that free riding is also an involuntarly transfer because it is not an involuntary transfer of any owned resource. That is simply false.-- Are you saying interests in a corporation (Partnership), and therefore the assets of a corporation in which one has an interest, cannot be privatized? Or that such privatization is not theft? Are you saying that, for example, if I have a non-compete agreement with that company and I compete with it, that I have not stolen opportunity and revenue from it? Are you defining property under rothbardian rules but then applying Propertarian terminology? Or if you used Propertarian terminology (what I use) would the logic then be valid? What you are saying in your argument is that rothbardian libertarian definitions (justifications using reason) are equal to demonstrated human actions in objective reality (science using observation). Not sure if you understand what youre doing. Youre equating rothbardian theory the status of physical reality and asking if my arguments fit. Rather than comparing the fit of my arguments versus rothbardian arguments to reality, and the estimated impact that each model would have on human behavior. The definition of property that I use, is the that which is demonstrated by human beings - everywhere. The definition of property that you use, is demonstrated only by persecuted parasitic subcultures against out-group members (gypsies and pre-modern ghetto jews). No group uses rothbardian ethics in-group because it violates human moral instincts that were necessary for us to evolve. Its parasitic to rely on rothbardian property and ethics out-group and its impossible to rely upon them in-group. Group is synonymous with the extension of trust, and rothbardian ethics license unethical and immoral action that betrays trust. 1 hr · Edited · Like Curt Doolittle It has taken me a lot of work, and a lot of time to distill it down so that its comprehensible, but I have done it at least well enough that its beginning to catch on. Rothbardianism is done. It is just a matter of time now. I can see how this will play out: as a redefinition of property, and retention of the NAP against my definition of property. Instead of binary representation of property, property will be accurately understood as a spectrum of rights that emerge as we suppress free riding in increasingly subtle ways. Rothbardianism will be left as I expected, as another phlogiston theory of ethics. I can only hope that it will be seen as a cultural misstep, not as a serious distraction that set us back nearly half a century. 1 hr · Like Stephan Kinsella Are you saying interests in a corporation (Partnership), and therefore the assets of a corporation in which one has an interest, cannot be privatized? Or that such privatization is not theft? I was not talking about corporations. I am not sure what you mean by privatization or why that would be theft. Are you saying that, for example, if I have a non-compete agreement with that company and I compete with it, that I have not stolen opportunity and revenue from it? It is impossible to steal opportunity since no one owns opportunity. And you have not stolen revenue either. Under Rothbardian title trasnfer of contract, an NDA simply specifies a conditional transfer of money from one party to another: You say, IF I reveal certain secrets, THEN I transfer $100k in money to you. Etc. The revealing of secrets is not itself theft. It is simply the trigger of a conditional title transfer. Are you defining property under rothbardian rules but then applying Propertarian terminology? ? whats the diff? Rothb. is a propertarian, no? Or if you used Propertarian terminology (what I use) would the logic then be valid? What you are saying in your argument is that rothbardian libertarian definitions (justifications using reason) are equal to demonstrated human actions in objective reality (science using observation). Not sure if you understand what youre doing. What I dont understand is what you are saying. Youre equating rothbardian theory the status of physical reality and asking if my arguments fit. Rather than comparing the fit of my arguments versus rothbardian arguments to reality, and the estimated impact that each model would have on human behavior. I am simply observing that your reasoning seems to be fallacious. I noted that you were question-begging by equating free-riding with theft. You tried to justify your assertion by saying theft is involuntary transfer, and that free-riding is an involutnary transfer, therefore it is theft. I pointed out that it is not involuntary transfer, since involuntary transfer means transfer *of some owned scarce resource*, and that this does not occur in the case of free riding. You have now replied, with some jumble of words, including some Initial Caps ones like Propertarian, that seems not to respond to this quite simple argument I made. The definition of property that I use, is the that which is demonstrated by human beings - everywhere. Human beings do not demonstrate definitions. The definition of property that you use, is demonstrated only by persecuted parasitic subcultures against out-group members (gypsies and pre-modern ghetto jews). No group uses rothbardian ethics in-group because it violates human moral instincts that were necessary for us to evolve. Its parasitic to rely on rothbardian property and ethics out-group and its impossible to rely upon them in-group. Group is synonymous with the extension of trust, and rothbardian ethics license unethical and immoral action that betrays trust. i fail to see how this word salad shows that free riding is an involuntary transfer of some owned resource. 6 mins · Like · 1 Stephan Kinsella Property ought to be considered a socially recognized relationship between an actor and a given contestable (rivalrous, scarce) resource. The owner has a property right (ownership right) in the resource. It is misleading to refer to the object of property rights as property, as your (no doubt unintentional) equivocation in these confused writings shows. If you will try to avoid redefining property which you need not do if you avoid using property as a synonym for the thing owned, but rather thing of the thing owned as a property of (characteristic of, extension of) the person who owns it, this helps clarify matters and avoid the confusing rabbit trails you are heading down. If property is just the ownership relationship between a person and some identifiable rivalrous resource in the world, what does it mean to redefine property? Curt, every political philosophy--whether libertarian, socialist, or whatever your burgeoning view is--is ultimately about how to allocate property rights in contestable resources. They all uphold property rights in things. They simply differ in their allocation rules. Libertarians allocate property in accordance with original appropriation, contractual transfer, and restitutive transfer--thats it. All other philosophies have some other kind of rule, which *necessarily* means: at some point you award ownership (property rights) to a person who did not acquire the resource by original appropriation, contract, or restitution--i.e., a resource previously owned by a given owner, is taken from him by force, against his will, and given to someone else--the state, the collective, the group, whatever. *This* is what real theft is, Curt. That is what you should talk about when you talk about theft. This is the real theft that you must ultimately be endorsing, if and to the extent you deviate from the libertarian property rights allocation. So it is frankly obscene for you to call free riding theft, when this brazen equivocation is simply being used as a cover to justify *real* theft.
Posted on: Sun, 20 Apr 2014 17:05:58 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015