On Property and Propertarianism

Hurlock recently posted on Property. I have made a few comments concerning Propertarianism on this blog, but it needs much more study, particularly in Neoreactionary circles. To put it simply, if you are talking about Property but are not versed in Propertarianism, then you are missing the latest and greatest in the theory of Property.

Let me give you an example from Hurlock’s post (emphasis mine):

It is important to realize that all property is private. That is, a specific unit of a good, or more generally a single specific object can only be de facto owned or controlled by a single person. For example, you can’t actually have two agents owning the same orange as a whole singular object together. The two agents might own different parts of the object but they can’t both have sovereign control over the same singular unit simultaneously. Obviously a conflict would arise. And in the end only one of them would end up a de factoowner of the singular object. Sovereignty is conserved.

 Now, look at the Propertarian glossary, and go to ‘Property’, here is a subsection:

    Types of property based upon observations of what people actually consider to be their property:

      Personal property: “Things an individual has a Monopoly Of Control over the use of.”
      a) Physical Body
      b) Actions and Time
      c) Memories, Concepts and Identities: tools that enable us to plan and act. In the consumer economy this includes brands.
      d) Several Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over.
      Cooperative Property: “relationships with others and tools of relationships upon which we reciprocally depend.”
      a) Mates (access to sex/reproduction)
      b) Children (genetics)
      c) Familial Relations (security)
      d) Non-Familial Relations (utility)
      e) Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)
      g) Racial property (racial ties)
      g) Organizational ties (work)
      h) Knowledge ties (skills, crafts)
      i) Status and Class (reputation)
      a) Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset)
      b) ARTIFICIAL PROPERTY: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.
      c) FORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY : Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.
      d) INFORMAL INSTITUTIONAL PROPERTY: Informal (Normative) Institutions: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.
      “Those properties in which we have invested our forgone opportunities, our efforts, or our material assets, in order to aggregate capital from multiple individuals for mutual gain.”

From this small section, we see that ‘Personal Property’ is only one-third of the types of property defined, with the other two being property that is not private. Contrary to the opening assertion, all property is not private. In fact, much property is interpersonal or shared, and it is the shared property that is the most difficult to manage under our current pseudoscientific definitions of and ideas around property. It is immediately obvious that ‘children’ are ‘objects’ which are in fact owned by two people, the mother and the father. Thinking of singular ownership only allows us to simplify how we consider property – it lets us off the hook with regard to the really tough problems. This is why Libertarians come to the wrong conclusions about so many things which reactionaries intuit correctly. What Reactionaries need is a scientific, economic language that we can use to express ownership of property such as consanguineous property, racial property, status and class, among others.

Let’s look at a normative commons as an example, which in Propertarian thought is defined as ‘informal institutional property’. Currently, there is a normative commons which is maligned through the pejorative ‘White privilege’.  Critics claim that this privilege is unearned, and thus is unfair. It is not unfair and it is not unearned because ‘White privilege’ is simply the recognition that Whites have created a normative commons, this commons is a shared property, and it is bought and paid for by bearing opportunity costs. To clarify: every time White privilege is extended to me, I have the opportunity to abuse it. Every time I go into a store, and the store owner allows me the privilege of walking about the store to peruse the wares without an armed guard following me, I then have the opportunity to steal. I could quietly sneak something into my pocket and exit without paying. When I do not steal, I have in effect paid something, because I am bearing an opportunity cost and forgoing the ‘free’ item. Why do I pay this cost? Because it creates a normative commons of trust, by not stealing I am maintaining that commons for myself and others like me to enjoy.

On the other hand, if you and those like you (your co-ethnics) take the White privilege that is extended to you and abuse it, then you destroy the commons. For example, if you live in a ‘diverse’ big city then you are familiar with convenience stores with bullet-proof teller windows where no-one is allowed to enter. The common area, the shopping area, has been physically expunged from the store. If you live in a White-topia such as rural New Hampshire, then you are familiar with homey little stores where you can walk in and peruse freely and engage in some pleasant conversation with a perfectly agreeable White person.

For one group of ethnics to demand ‘White privilege’ and then be unwilling to bear the opportunity costs necessary to create that normative commons, is for that group to demand something that is unearned. That group has demonstrated unwillingness to pay for their privileges. They demand that others take a risk for their benefit, a risk which has been shown to not be worth the cost of taking.

White privilege is a normative commons that has been payed for by paying opportunity cost. It is ‘owned’ by the group of people who pay for it. It is ‘informal institutional property’.

Property is a slippery and essential thing for us to understand, because it is not merely ‘private property’. The Libertarian views of property tend to reduce and simplify it and are unable to grasp it in its full complexity and therefore produce logical, rational, economic arguments for intangible property such as normative commons.

I hope that this one small example on the topic of ‘informal institutional property’ will encourage more Neoreactionaries to study the work that Curt Doolittle is doing over at Propertarianism.com. You will find it instructive. At least I certainly have, otherwise I never would be able to articulate ‘White privilege’ in economic terms.


Republic of Minerva

I’ve recently discovered the Republic of Minerva:

The Republic of Minerva was one of the few modern attempts at creating a sovereign micronation on the reclaimed land of an artificial island in 1972. The architect was Las Vegas real estate millionaire and political activist Michael Oliver, who went on to other similar attempts in the following decade. Lithuanian-born Oliver formed a syndicate, the Ocean Life Research Foundation, which allegedly had some $100,000,000 for the project and had offices in New York and London.

They anticipated a libertarian Society with “no taxation, welfare, subsidies, or any form of economic interventionism.” In addition to tourism and fishing, the economy of the new nation would include light industry and other commerce. According to Glen Raphael, “The chief reason that the Minerva project failed was that the libertarians who were involved did not want to fight for their territory.”[1] According to Reason, Minerva has been “more or less reclaimed by the sea”.[2] The site chosen for the Republic was the Minerva Reefs in the Pacific Ocean.

So, a libertarian millionaire hauls in some sand and builds a tower and then declares the Sovereign Republic of Minerva as existing on the island, and also minted some silver coins. That’s all great. I love the enthusiasm.

Of course, sovereignty is not simply a matter of declaring oneself sovereign. Sovereignty is proved and defended by military might alone. Well, no sooner does Minerva come into existence than the Kingdom of Tonga, population 100,000, asserts its ownership and defends it with force. That is the end of Minerva, until another group of Americans again attempt to take the reef in 1985 and are forced off.

I post this, because many Libertarians envision some Utopia where each man can be a sovereign, having no evil parasitic government to rule over him. Minerva is a modern example of what will happen. A larger, more organized group will simply revoke your sovereignty, unless you can muster the military might to defend it. If you’re one man, then two men can revoke your sovereignty, so single men will organize into groups of men, because larger groups have competitive advantages. The real world doesn’t care about your Non-Aggression Principle. If you want to build a polity on top of the NAP, then you’ll need to have the military might to defend that polity. In the process of organizing your military, oops, I mean private defense contractors, you’ll need to pay for that defense and you’ll end up doing that by imposing taxes, oops, I mean involuntary contributions from everyone in the polity – they have to be involuntary or some might be tempted to skip out on their fair share of the costs. Those darn free-riders are everywhere. Sure, maybe every man has a rifle in your Libertopia and will fight to defend it, but it seems pretty likely that they will be out-competed by polities which have taken advantage of specialization to allow some of their polity to focus on science, or farming, while others focus on defense, funded by involuntary contributions. Maybe after your top scientist gets killed defending a tomato field in a border skirmish you might see the wisdom of this specialization. Those contributions will probably be the largest for the most profitable members and groups who have the most to lose from a military defeat, and lower for the guy who cleans the toilets. Hmm, that sounds quite a bit like a progressive tax system to me. Actually, when you think about the organization of the entities and the existential imperative to defend those entities, then what you end up getting looks identical in practice to a government.

It’s almost as if those stupid old white guys you read about in dusty old books didn’t organize into societies with governments because they were stupid and old and white, but because they had to if they wanted to have a chance at competing with other organized groups. This isn’t to say that there aren’t many great insights to Libertarianism, there are many, but certain things seem to elude Libertarians, such as the necessity of banding together in groups for survival and the concomitant necessity of ensuring the survival of that group through violence and the institutions necessary to carry out those survival functions. The Libertarian Utopia organized around the NAP, with no organized systems of violence used to redirect resources from productive activities into defense (disallowing free-riding), is not going to happen, and not because of stupid old white guys who just can’t see your vision, but because it can’t.

On Rothbard’s Natural Law vs Positive Law

In my last post on Obscurant Libertarianism and Group Ethics, I made the case that Rothbardian/libertarian/liberal ethics are parasitic in nature. I wanted to take a closer look at Rothbard’s The Ethics of Liberty to make the case more clearly.

Apparently, Hurlock disagreed with my analysis.

As promised, here is a snarky take, followed by some more serious commentary.

[begin snark]

In The Ethics of Liberty, ch. 3, Rothbard writes:

IF, THEN, THE NATURAL law is discovered by reason from “the basic inclinations of human nature . . . absolute, immutable, and of universal validity for all times and places,” it follows that the natural law provides an objective set of ethical norms by which to gauge human actions at any time or place.

Wait a second. I completely agree with this. What’s going on here? I think man has a nature, and that man will act according to that nature as if it is a law. Natural law sounds all right to me.

The natural law is, in essence, a profoundly “radical” ethic, for it holds the existing status quo, which might grossly violate natural law, up to the unsparing and unyielding light of reason. In the realm of politics or State action, the natural law presents man with a set of norms which may well be radically critical of existing positive law imposed by the State. At this point, we need only stress that the very existence of a natural law discoverable by reason is a potentially powerful threat to the status quo and a standing reproach to the reign of blindly traditional custom or the arbitrary will of the State apparatus.

Hmm. Ok. I’m a totally radical dude, so a radical ethic sounds cool. And who doesn’t love freaking Nature?

So natural law is radical, meaning it will not uphold the status quo, because the status quo might grossly violate natural law? Well, violation is like rape: the status quo is raping Nature?! Not on my watch, bro! So status quo = bad and radical natural law = good. Got it.

And positive law, meaning that decreed by the ruler(s), is going to get its ass kicked by reason showing us natural law. Not just positive law but also the reign of blindly traditional custom. So, the tradition and custom are reigning? Who else reigns? Well, kings reign, don’t they? Wait now, this is America! We hate kings! I’m having an emotional response to that word reign which lets me know that traditional custom probably sucks as bad as kings do. Not only is it reigning, but it is reigning blindly. Holy crap! Blind reigning is way worse than just reigning. Uggh, I can tell I’m totally going to hate traditional custom already. Thank God I have Rothbard here to help me figure this out.

In fact, the legal principles of any society can be established in three alternate ways: (a) by following the traditional custom of the tribe or community; (b) by obeying the arbitrary, ad hoc will of those who rule the State apparatus; or (c) by the use of man’s reason in discovering the natural law—in short, by slavish conformity to custom, by arbitrary whim, or by use of man’s reason. These are essentially the only possible ways for establishing positive law. Here we may simply affirm that the latter method is at once the most appropriate for man at his most nobly and fully human, and the most potentially “revolutionary” vis-à-vis any given status quo.

So we have a) traditional custom, b) arbitrary law, or c) reason. Well, I already have a bad feeling about traditional custom, because it is reigning blindly and that sounds really crappy. And arbitrary law means they are just pulling this shit out of their ass, and I know that sucks. Then there is reason which sounds awfully smart, and I’m a smart guy. All the girls who wouldn’t go to prom with me and who copied off my homework thought I was smart. And reason is noble? Well, hell, count me in, Murray! Reason it is.

While natural-law theory has often been used erroneously in defense of the political status quo, its radical and “revolutionary” implications were brilliantly understood by the great Catholic libertarian historian Lord Acton. Acton saw clearly that the deep flaw in the ancient Greek—and their later followers’—conception of natural law political philosophy was to identify politics and morals, and then to place the supreme social moral agent in the State. From Plato and Aristotle, the State’s proclaimed supremacy was founded in their view that “morality was distinguished from religion and politics from morals; and in religion, morality, and politics there was only one legislator and one authority.”

Wow. So some assholes have been using natural law to erroneously defend the status quo? Well, I guess I can shorten that in my mind to defending the status quo is erroneous, right? I learned earlier that the status quo is like raping Nature, and raping Nature is obviously erroneous. So, obviously, natural law will not lead me to defend the status quo, because I’m noble and I’m going to use my reason, dammit

Now, Acton says the Greeks had a deep flaw, not just a flaw, but a deep one because they put the supreme social moral agent (whatever that is) in the State. And the State claimed that there was only one legislator and one authority. Who could this one legislator be? Let’s come back to that.

Next, Rothbard quotes John Wild:

the philosophy of natural law defends the rational dignity of the human individual and his right and duty to criticize by word and deed any existent institution or social structure in terms of those universal moral principles which can be apprehended by the individual intellect alone.

So, true natural law defends the rational dignity of the individual. Rational. Individual. And these universal moral principles which can be apprehended by the individual intellect alone. Man this is deep. I’m an individual, and I’m smart. Who would be against the rational dignity of the human individual? Only someone stupid, I’m sure, like those old Greek philosophers. Muh Liberty!!!!

[end snark]

Let’s look at some trickery here. Rothbard uses overloaded words and negatively cast phrases such as blindly reigning and slavish conformity. He uses unsubstantiated aspersions against the Greek philosophers, claiming a deep flaw, with no real analysis of that deep flaw except to associate it with the State, which he has thoroughly maligned by this point in the book. He has used words like noble and dignity when speaking of reason and rationality, painting them with an emotional context.

Rothbard has given the reader a false choice between tradition/custom, positive law, and reason. By creating this false choice, the reader is led to believe that the first two are not reasonable. A smart human, and libertarians tend to be smart, will be drawn to this argument of individual reason.

Rothbard also associated a negatively contextualized organization, the State, with tradition/custom and positive law. What is the State? Up until very recently, the State would have been an ethno-state of high-trust corporate-minded Europeans. It would have been an organization of genetically related humans who have banded together for survival in a barbarous world. In short, it would have been a group of human whose relationship is very much informed by a group ethos, genetic similarity, and of responsibility to one another. But Rothbard continually paints this group organizational structure negatively, as a parasite on the individual.

Here is the essential legerdemain: Rothbard asserts that the individual intellect alone upholds natural law, and that the forms of group reason, custom/tradition and positive law, do not uphold natural law. That’s right, group reason, reason which has been contextualized within a group relationship. He makes the assertion about individual reason and neglects the existence of group reason. He makes the individualistic argument here, and if you’re not paying attention then you won’t even know that the group ethic argument even exists. Pretty sneaky, Rothbard. In the preceding post, I assert that the group relationship is fundamental to human existence, as almost no individuals can exist without a host group. How much can one human brain ascertain? Is it truly reasonable to assert that a single human can be wiser than a multiplicity of humans reasoning through timelines of thousands of years?

Rather than viewing tradition/custom as blindly reigning, is it not more reasonable to view them as open source code which has been tested by thousands of run-time executions? If humans are thinking machines, then aren’t our beliefs much like uncompiled code? Each individual then processes the code and acts based on it. Every individual actor is like an object instance interacting with other object instances. As these objects interact, the code can produce beneficial, neutral or negative results. Negative results can be viewed as bugs which need to be identified and removed.

To put it more simply, is it not more reasonable to view tradition/custom as the combined reason of thousands/millions of humans over thousands/millions of lifetimes of interactions? Is Rothbard really making the assertion that a single human brain, over a single lifetime, can asses the complex workings of an entire civilization and calculate the correct workings of interactions? Pure hubris. I call bullshit, dear libertarians. Is it possible that those combined intellects could reach conclusions that a single human mind cannot comprehend? Most assuredly. But in that case it is not the tradition/custom that is blind, it is the individual reason who cannot fathom the depths of the tradition/custom. Yet, Rothbard attributes the blindness not to the individual human mind, but to the opaque inter-generational risk management heuristic. Very nice, Rothbard, exceedingly cunning inversion.

Now, back to the solitary legislator of the Greeks. Who is that? Well, Gnon, of course. Natural law is the only law, that comes from a single source: Nature’s God, or Nature. But Rothbard hides the fact that the Greeks were defending natural law. But why? Because they were defending natural law as it is ascertained through a group of human minds over time, which is not individualistic and therefore not liberal. The Greeks were processing natural law in the correct context: the group context. To place the supreme moral social agent in the State could be rephrased as the survival of the group is paramount. It is the group that matters most, and morality and ethics must be considered within a group context. Rothbard has attempted to obscure the fact that the Greeks were thinking of the group, and to paint that perspective as unreasonable, simply because it cannot be ascertained by an individual intellect alone. He paints the failure of the individual to understand opaque dicta as a failing of the group institution. This exposes the false choice: either tradition/custom or reason; excluding the possibility that tradition/custom is group reason.

By looking solely through the lens of the individual, Rothbard intentionally impugns the reasoning ability of group – reason which is tested through thousands/millions of run-time interactions to produce groups which are obviously capable of surviving or else they would not have survived. This allows for parasitic ethics, childish ethics, where the actions of the group which have created a working system can be criticized through a single tiny mind’s reason. It allows completely untested theory to override proven, working systems. It places individual reason as greater than group reason. That is insanity. That is Liberté. That is libertarianism.

Obscurant Libertarianism and Group Ethics

I agree with Curt Doolittle that libertarianism is obscurant and dishonest. From the start libertarianism as a project intended to create a form of capitalism that was as liberal as possible. This project required the libertarians to rewrite history from the perspective of the individual, hiding group roles and responsibilities; thus the obscurant and dishonest nature of libertarianism.

Liberalism is individualism. Who has Liberty? Why, the individual, of course. There is no such thing as ‘group liberty’. If anything, membership in a group comes with concomitant obligations to that group, which would not mean ‘liberty’. Each individual has been liberated from the group. The individual is the primary unit, and all theories are built upon that solitary unit. I express this as ‘1’. Then I can express egalitarianism as ‘1=1’, and universalism as ‘1=1=1=1…’. Liberalism is individualism and it is the fundamental building block of leftist thought. Some say that egalitarianism is leftism, and individualism is liberalism. Either way, egalitarianism flows from liberalism. The idea of Liberty and the individual are inseparable. In liberalism, the individual is greater than the group.

This is the fundamental lie of the left: the concept that the individual is greater than the group. On its face it is absurd. What individual can live without the group? Almost zero domesticated humans in America would last any time at all if everyone else in the world disappeared. We owe our lives to group cooperation. Can a mother just drop a baby in the forest and expect it to live? This is where Rothbardian libertarianism breaks down. From Ethics of Liberty, ch. 14:

There remains, however, the difficult case of children. The right of self-ownership by each man has been established for adults, for natural self-owners who must use their minds to select and pursue their ends. On the other hand, it is clear that a newborn babe is in no natural sense an existing self-owner, but rather a potential self-owner.[1] But this poses a difficult problem: for when, or in what way, does a growing child acquire his natural right to liberty and self-ownership? Gradually, or all at once? At what age? And what criteria do we set forth for this shift or transition?

Clearly, a child is a member of a group. He is not a ‘self-owner’, he lives only through the host group. Rothbard does backflips in this section of the book to maintain the absurd notion of a self-owning individual, rather than a member of a group. All of his arguments revolve around self-ownership. For Rothbard, abortion is sanctioned ‘because a mother’s will is inalienable, and she cannot legitimately be enslaved into carrying and having a baby against her will.‘ But if the mother is actually not simply an individual, if she is also a member of a group, then wouldn’t the rights of the group come into play? If that group is a family, then wouldn’t the father have rights and claims on the baby as well? Isn’t every member of a group, in some way ‘enslaved‘ to that group, if he wishes to maintain membership, especially when exclusion from the group means certain death in a barbarous world? Avoiding Rothbard’s obscurant negativism and rephrasing positively: isn’t every member of the group positively obligated to act responsibly to the other members of the host group? Wouldn’t the wishes of a father in a family have a significant impact on a mother’s choice to abort her baby? Not in Rothbard’s individualistic world, the low-trust world we now seem to inhabit. Rothbard’s ethics allow individuals to soak up all the benefits that come with being allowed membership in a host group, while shirking all responsibility to that host group. Rothbardian ethics are therefore parasitic.

When I look at the Dark Enlightenment I see individualism replaced with the ‘groupism‘ or group ethics, or at least group-centered thought. Tribes and thedes are groups. HBD deals with the genetics at a population level, drawing inferences to individual behavior based on relationships to groups. Ethno-Nationalists are occupied with the survival of the ethny – the genetically related group. Traditionalists and Patriarchs study the ‘liberation’ of females from group ethics and responsibilities to the group. PUA’s descend on these ‘liberated’ females like jackals, enjoying the decline of high-trust group ethics and the necessary libertinism that follows.

It appears to me that just as libertarians re-conceptualized economics and capitalism through the lens of the individual, it should be a project of the DE to re-conceptualize them through the lens of the group and group ethics. I believe that this is what Curt Doolittle is doing with his Propertarianism. I think he is working to correct the libertarian head-fake of the individual as the primary economic actor, rebuilding economic theory with the previously hidden responsibility to the group. I believe that it is the goal of libertarianism to obscure group ethics, groupism, and to replace it with a parasitic/individualistic/liberal system of ethics. No man is an island. The individual exists only through cooperation with the group, the individual therefore owes the group something: to repay the social capital that is extended by that group.

This is not to say that individuals do not exist and that granting individuals a certain amount of ‘liberty’ is non-optimal. It appears that in the West we tend to be liberal and to grant autonomy and that this has been successful at times. There are benefits to this approach. However, there must be a balance. Certainly, group ethics should not be obscured by or subordinated to individual ethics. That is insanity. That is libertarianism.

Religion, tradition, patriarchy, and ethno-nationalism are all concerned with group-ethics, and an understanding that the liberty/rights/autonomy of any individual within a group comes with responsibilities to that host group, and that it is the survival and flourishing of the host group that is paramount.

I am not a philosopher, nor am I as erudite as many in the DE: I would be grateful for any insights as to how classical philosophers viewed group ethics and their relationship to individual ethics.