Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans

[T]he intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules:
0) Private property
1) Voluntary Exchange
2) Symmetry and Warranty*
3) Prohibition on Externality*
4) Requirement for Value Added*
5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding.
6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains
These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution.

Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws):

7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law)
8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.)
9) The right of exclusion (ostracization).

[T]hese last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft).

High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts
These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods.

As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market
Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust.

As Such,

1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts,
2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts
3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts.

As Such, A Common Law System Can Function
Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible.

Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability
As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts.

Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE.

1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable.
2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable
3) Measurements render relations commensurable
4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable.
5) Money renders goods and services commensurable
6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable

One response to “Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans”

  1. Nice work. I’ve always thought that deductive, a priori forms of rationalism would run into problems when faced with questions that needed a “measurement” of human behavior, or the “human-behavior commensurability problem”.

    Your insight on treating property as descriptive rather than normative is really intriguing; it just “clicks”. I’m hoping to see more discussion around this down the line.

    Keep on truckin’ Curt – you may be on to something big here my friend.

Leave a Reply