I moved to Mises.

Hey! I've made a profile on the Mises.org community site and will be doing a lot of writing there in forums and comments. I'll still try to publish all my articles on this blogspot site. If you're a libertarian and want a good place to enter the blogosphere, check out Mises.org.

Androids and Ethics

I've been reading Kinsella recently on ethics. He seems to assert that property rights are what determine self-ownership rather than the other way around. He says that your body is property of your Self because you have direct control over it and had first control over it, making it homesteaded by you. I'm a bit confused on the origin of self-ownership in relation to property rights. In many other libertarian writings, including Hoppe, authors assert that self-ownership is true because to deny it is a performative contradiction and from this idea flows the basic moral system of property rights.

Kinsella, apparently, basis his ideas on Hoppe's argumentation ethics as do I (What you could call ideas) but I can't understand why they diverge on this particular subject.

 So who is correct, or more correct? Where do libertarian ethics begin?

You could make the utilitarian argument of Mises but right now I'm more concerned with the deontological arguments. Being more of an ethics-buff than an economics-buff, the guiding principles on which libertarianism is based interest me deeply and I accept the NAP, the Self-ownership principle, and extended property rights (as in more than just personal possession when it is in use) but I'm not entirely sure what leads to what and how.

My first argument against Kinsella stems from my sci-fi obsession, in the form of a completely outrageous but nonetheless interesting scenario.

So if we imagine a programmer builds a conscious android whose body can be controlled by the programmer at a computer. At some times, the android's Self has complete control over his actions and therefore qualifies for the self-ownership principle. But at other times, the programmer may take control of the android's body and he is powerless to stop it and the programmer has both direct and first use.

The programmer also has creative rights, which are invalid by Kinsellan ethics.

The programmer has indisputable first and direct use as he activated the android and used his cognitive and motor functions first (undoubtedly in tests) and can seize control of him at any time. Assuming he wants to hold onto these rights, he has control of the android's body and possibly even his mind without the android's consent.

Clearly this is a form of slavery but my understanding of Kinsella's argument leads me to believe that this scenario would be possible under his system. A consciousness is trapped, immovably, inside another's property which violates both basic freedom of movement and self-determination. This cannot be allowed to happen under any moral system.

I know this is an odd scenario but it touches on the very real issue of whether or not people who are not in complete control of their actions technically own themselves and the results of their actions. I know that if the android commits a crime while under the control of his programmer he is not responsible but this is not the same as his body being the property of his programmer just as a person is not responsible for murder if someone stole their gun and shot someone else.

So I come to a point of deduction really. I want to believe the android owns his body but I don't know exactly why. The only reasons I can think of for this is a subjective freedom ethic, which would be altogether too vague or an ethic which begins with the self-ownership principle. The use of the body is necessary to carry out the will of the mind; therefore a mind has ownership of its respective body. 

Property would then be an extension of freedom of mind and that opens up the path for the moralization of intellectual property, which has always rubbed me the wrong way even before I started reading Kinsella. Not to mention it sounds a lot like Rand and the last thing I want to do in my moral thinking is declare that government must exist because "Man is Man".

So again, I'm still a little lost on this one but Hoppe seems to have the best idea of the origin of libertarian ethics; one that is not based on vague or romanticized ideas but logic and that doesn't allow for the possibility of someone controlling someone else's body non-consensually. I've read that Kinsella accepts Hoppe's argumentation ethics but I don't understand how, if he believes that rights stem for self-ownership, he still claims that property rights precede self-ownership and that the homestead principle is therefore more basic than the self-ownership principle. 

When The Bear Becomes the Bee-Keeper

Franz Oppenheimer wrote a book called "The State" in which he defined the six-stage evolution of the state in society by the domination of one ethnic group by another. The two will eventually fuse, but Oppenheimer essentially believed that the principle cause of the State's existence was the subjugation of one people by another.

I wrote a short poem over the subject and but first here's a very brief outline of the stages.

Stage One: A group of people acts as a bear would to a bee-hive and invades another. Tyranny, rape, and pillage. They often return to the same group of people and pillage again.

Stage Two: The Bear becomes the Bee-Keeper. Dominates the hive for more money. A notion of right and wrong develops among the conquerors regarding the way in which they should treat the subjugated. Live subjects can produce more than dead.

Stage Three: Surpluses lead to more tribute-- Precursor to taxation.

Stage Four: Both ethnic groups become a union on one strip of land. Move from international to intranational relationship.

Stage Five: Conflicts between different peasants are put down by the leaders; leads to the court systems.

Stage Six: Interference in subjects' affairs increase. Stratification increases.

When The Bear Becomes The Bee-Keeper;

Wandering Herdsmen, out for a fight,

Come across a settled society at night,

And as the bear acts to the bee,

Or how the Viking acts on the Sea,

So these tyrants robbed and stole,

And became the great kings of old.

With authority established by the sword,

They rode to victory in monstrous hordes.

But a true nation did not come to be,

Until the tyrants came to see,

That a dead man cannot work the fields,

And an untended crop, little profit yields.

So the tyrant let the man stand and the tree grow,

Leaving him with his seeds to sow,

And let be the peaceful sleeper,

When the Bear became the Bee-Keeper.

So the notion of right and wrong,

Enter into our present song.

For what is good to the Peasant is profitable to the king.

"Praise to his Virtue," the Peasants sing.

When prosperity came to all,

And Gold decorated the tyrant's hall,

He made the Peasants feel accepted,

And their tribute was never rejected.

So the Law of the land was made,

By Methods no less cruel than De' Sade's.

The hegemons can stay or go anywhere,

But if they return, the land is theirs.

If a few rivalrous Peasants,

Make everyone else's day unpleasant,

With their quarreling amongst each other,

The tyrant must now be an elder brother,

And find a solution, equitable and fair.

To mend the dividing tear,

Which ripped its way so maliciously,

Into his people and their productivity.

By now the invaders have chosen to stay,

And have chosen women with whom to lay.

On this strip of land, they will build a new nation,

And secure domestic relations.

The Peasants now greet their captors,

Not as wolves, hawks, or raptors,

But as protectors of the realm,

And steersmen at the ship's great helm.

Leading softly, through the night,

As arbitrators of wrong and right.

"The State is all and we are none,"

They cry, as patiently, they await the sun.

   

Who Cares What Other People Think?

Who Cares What Other People Think?


He does too.





So I'm reading through Hodgskin's "An Essay on naval Discipline" and within the first few chapters he discusses what exactly "Fame" is. He defines it as a pursuit of the praise of other to such an extent that the recipient of that praise becomes conscious of his superiority of others and, because man is naturally disposed to seek praise, it is one of the principle motivators of people to action.



Adam Smith in his "Theory of Moral Sentiments" stated similar ideas and given the two thinker's close proximity to each other in time and theory (Hodgkins was a follower of Ricardo whose ideas on the Labour Theory of Value) are often lumped together with Smith's, although there are distinctions).



I can easily think of many Americans who have that mentality of "Keeping up with the Joneses" which so influenced the song "Grand Illusion" by Styx,



"Welcome to the Grand illusion
Come on in and see what's happening
Pay the price, get your tickets for the show
The stage is set, the band starts playing
Suddenly your heart is pounding
Wishing secretly you were a star.



But don't be fooled by the radio
The TV or the magazines
They show you photographs of how your life should be
But they're just someone else's fantasy
So if you think your life is complete confusion
Because you never win the game
Just remember that it's a Grand illusion
And deep inside we're all the same.
We're all the same...



So if you think your life is complete confusion
Because your neighbours got it made
Just remember that it's a Grand illusion
And deep inside we're all the same.
We're all the same...



America spells competition, join us in our blind ambition
Get yourself a brand new motor car
Someday soon we'll stop to ponder what on Earth's this spell we're under
We made the grade and still we wonder who the hell we are."



Sometimes, capitalism is criticised for inspiring a pursuit of wealth with little to no self reflection, an obsession with the material that takes hold of our lives and destroys social solidarity and leaves the great majority of us feeling unfulfilled and left behind.



But, by my observation, it is instead the pursuit of the praise and admiration of our fellows that we seek material wealth so vehemently, only to squander it on things we would be perfectly happy without (as long as the Joneses didn't get one).



Why then do human beings seek praise so much? The raw pursuit of admiration doesn't seem to have any immediate benefit to either the individual or collective (particularly when that admiration is derived exclusively from the acquisition of material wealth and the squander thereof). Sacred cows, unholy pigs, love of pigs, the obnoxiously fierce concept of masculinity; all of these can be at least partially explained by what might be called materialistic theories but I cannot see a materialist reason for the rise of our obsession with each other's praise (besides the basic need of humans to work together, which can be solved much more easily than a devotion to spending and wasting more than anyone else).

Marvin Harris, one of the leading anthropologists in America argues in his book "Cows, Pigs, Wars, and Witches" that all human culture stems originally from some concrete place or need. For instance, those societies that would need some sort of redistribution of wealth, but do not have the appropriate social structure to maintain it, may have some sort of a potlatch. During this the individual gives away as much food as possible, for the perceived reason of making everybody love him. The answer is evolutionary in nature; those societies full of affable people willing to give food away and receive love will survive while those that aren't will not.

While I accept Harris's solution for the Native Americans who practice the potlatch, I'm not sure how well it applies to modern America. Perhaps it is simply left-over from before, when a voluntary redistribution of wealth was more necessary (though I would argue it is very necessary now). The problem is that our pursuit of admiration doesn't always lead us towards altruistic pursuits but often selfish ones (Is this because of the "invisible hand, Mr. Smith?).

This question is one that has always peeked my interest and my own emotions as I, like anyone, pursue the good opinion of my peers. I will no doubt consider to ponder this question, but for now I am left in mystery as to the origin of our obsession with proving ourselves worthy of extravagance. I only know that for our society to advance into a more equal, free, and voluntary form we must overcome it.    

Polygamy and other victimless crimes.

Law, Custom, and Taboo

There are many different theories on how exactly the concept of a "law" came to be. Was it the arbitrary dictations of an aggressor on his victims? In many cases, yes. Was it a strengthening of the position of simply a local custom into a taboo with force to back it up? In many other cases, yes.

One thing we can be very sure about however is that the modern conception of "law" did not originally exist to stop people from infringing on each other's natural rights. In truth, the concept of natural rights was largely a product of the peasantry or subjugated class of a State, which Franz Oppenheimer illustrates very clearly in his classic, "Der Staat" or "The State". Law, Oppenheimer claims, was preceded by the moment that the "bear became the beekeeper" or when conquerors realized that a man alive is worth more than a man dead and a tree tended too is worth more than a neglected stump. He is not claiming that they had an epiphany but instead that, by evolutionary model and natural selection, those hegemons who did treat their subjects with some semblence of decency were more likely to survive.

Not all laws, however, protect one individual from another. For that matter, not all cultural taboos, in any culture, exclusively protect the individual. I had a conversation recently with someone convinced that things like polygamy or sexual activities amongst children are tabooed because they must be unhealthy or directly hurt someone. I tried to explain that polygamous cultures in the past have provided more rights to women in many cases but they continued to insist that because the Mormons in America did not that no polygamous culture ever could. I don't try to make claims to absolute objectivity but if we can't open our frame of vision beyond only those things recorded in our own culture we are lost from an anthropological standpoint.

Beyond the issue of polygamy is the issue of sexual activity amongst children (only child to child--Adult to child is a completely different and often head 'splodeing issue). In our culture it is severely frowned upon although it seems to directly harm absolutely no one. Forgetting religious concerns for the moment, why would such things be prohibited? Some claim because it would be unhealthy for the child. Perhaps in our culture this is true but the only unhealthy aspects of it would be the psychological problems that accompany the violation of a taboo, which must be blamed more on the taboo itself than the act if the act has no other discernable consequence. Among the !Kung people in the Kalahari, it is common practice for children to do this and is perceived as normal and healthy. You can look at the causes of such practices among different societies but, while that is a fascinating subject, I am, at this time, more concerned with the question of morality. The !Kung children grow up fine and perfectly adapted to their culture.

On the other hand, the !Kung have a strict taboo against speaking the name of the dead, who they fear will cause them physical harm if they do. They also have a taboo on telling dirty jokes in the company of your sister. While this may be good advice, most would not consider it to be immoral and it causes direct harm to know individual.

The !Kung may wonder at how we speak the names of our dead or make sexual references in the immediate vicinity of female relatives and we may wonder why they allow children to fondle each other. In each instance no one is being hurt but we still perceive wrong being done.

I'm not trying to denounce all taboo, many of which have utilitarian purposes and are a important part of group identity and solidarity, I am only insisting that to exist in a multicultural world we must make no claim to being a "Christian" or "Muslim" nation and must allow people to do what they will. All people are free to harbor their own feelings about certain acts, harmful or otherwise, but I would recommend that we analyze to roots and effects of our own traditions before condemning others and, above all, that we try to keep open minds and big hearts.   

The Welfare State and Recipient

Libertarians are often disdainful of the Welfare recipient. Not the system, which I agree to be a social evil, but of the recipients themselves. Single parent homes and other situations involving childcare contribute to the bulk of Welfare recipients and libertarians often view these people who were imprudent in their lives and are paying the price now. Some contribute this to libertarian demographics, claiming that libertarianism is "the rich man's anarchy" or "liberalism for old white men".

Is this true? Are libertarians demographically more likely to be rich than their liberal counterparts? The answer is no if you go by a study done by the PEW research center in 2006. In fact libertarians were shown to be slightly poorer, on average, than their liberal counterparts.

What then am I missing? Am I wrong about most libertarians? Are very few actually disdainful of those who live off the State at the bottom of the pyramid? Certainly the State is a broken system but it sits upon the backs of the poor and always has. Since the days of Aryan invasions and classes based on ethnicity, the State has existed to serve and preserve an upper class. Why shouldn't the poor and powerless take back what they can get?

As a character in Mario Puzo's "The Fortunate Pilgrim" says,

"Take whatever you can get because the accursed State will steal it back from you five times over!"

The fact that these people even need help is a symptom of the disease which includes government as one of its many causes. Perhaps we should focus our attention on the elite and ally ourselves with those who are being oppressed. That is the only way these social evils will ever be truly cured.

Stay in School! I Command it!

Steph goes on another brilliant rampage against public education. It's time to get out of this ownership mentality. A service imposed on a customer is assualt, not buisness. Maybe its about time we thought the same way about education.

Here's the link,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ho5Z-wYBa6I&feature=channel_video_title