Rothbardian Ethics Are Immoral, Parasitic And The Reason For The Failure Of Libertarianism.

–“First they ignore you.
Then they ridicule you.
Then they fight you.
Then you win.”–

[A]ristocratic Egalitarianism requires that one fight for the liberty of those who would also have it. Proficiency at war, both verbal and physical, is a requirement for membership.

Only Aristocratic Egalitarians are free. Everyone else is merely given freedom by permission, or a free-riding parasite on that aristocracy.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute

One response to “Rothbardian Ethics Are Immoral, Parasitic And The Reason For The Failure Of Libertarianism.”

    William L. Benge likes this.

    Mike Peinovich
    Curt, can you clarify how you think they are parasitic?
    7 hours ago · Like

    D Frank Robinson
    Kiev? Really?
    7 hours ago · Like

    Curt Doolittle


    I would really like it if one of the other guys answer this but I think time zones would cause delay.

    Rothbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states.

    However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary.

    I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral.

    7 hours ago · Like

    D Frank Robinson So collectively valid if the collectivity is deemed a State, otheriwise no?
    7 hours ago · Like

    Curt Doolittle D Frank Robinson Yes. Really. I’m in Kiev. A year and a half here. Thanks to my fellow liberty lover Roman Skaskiw who set me up here for success.

    Kind of freaky place for the past six months. But I love Ukrainians. (I love russians too. Even if they’re all nuts. But I don’t want to be governed by those nuts.)
    7 hours ago · Edited · Like · 3

    D Frank Robinson I think I’m satisfied with my analysis of the argument.
    7 hours ago · Like

    Curt Doolittle Frank. I don’t understand. I am arguing that ethics are objective not subjective. The only choice is HOW ethical and Moral you want to be, now the definition of ethical and moral, which is, as I’ve said, objective.
    7 hours ago · Like

    Curt Doolittle I mean –”So collectively valid if the collectivity is deemed a State, otheriwise no?”– Is not a sentence because it lacks a subject. That’s why I don’t understand. Also ‘collectively’ is an adverb and doesn’t make sense in this context.
    7 hours ago · Edited · Like

    7 hours ago · Like

    D Frank Robinson
    The brain is objectively an organ in an objectively unique body. Humans lack the objective tools to derive an objective ethic from the processes of the human brain. Someday maybe, but for now we must infer from actions. Until the objective tools are available, it’s speculation that can easily, too easily, slide into superstition.
    7 hours ago · Like

    Curt Doolittle
    You need to keep up on research, rely on science, and not empty verbalism of continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. (See Axelrod – Cooperation. See Fukuyama – Trust. See Todd ‘Explanation of Ideology; The Invention of Europe. See Hannan – The Inve…See More

    Jonathan Haidt’s Citations | Propertarianism (Abramowitz, A. I., and K. L. Saunders. 2008. “Is Polarization a Myth?” Journal of Politics 70:542–55. Adorno, T. W., E. Frenkel-Brunswik, D. J. Levinson, and R. N. Sanford. 1950. The Authoritarian Personality. New York: Harper and Row. Alford, J. R., C. L. Funk, and J. R. Hibbing. 2005.“Are Politica…)
    7 hours ago · Like · Remove Preview

    Curt Doolittle
    Lee: Blackmail is the most popular. But fraud by omission is the other. Under rothbardianism the buyer must beware, and under propertarianism the seller must beware. This puts warranty in the hands of the person with the greatest knowledge and produces the least asymmetry of knowledge.

    Back To Eli. Who is generally easier to understand than I am.
    2 hours ago · Like

    Lee C Waaks
    I missed Eli’s example. Yes, panhandlers are bums. Even Mr. Ghetto Ethics himself (Rothbard), said so. He said those on welfare should “straighten up and fly right.”
    2 hours ago · Unlike · 1

    Daniel Acheampong
    Yup. If you talk to someone about the fraudulence of the evangelist or whoever, you’ll get the spiel about “comforting lies”, or something to that effect, provided not the one branded as the liar. In light of people touting the social benefits…See More
    2 hours ago · Unlike · 3

    Curt Doolittle
    Love you man. Thanks. – curt
    32 minutes ago · Like

Leave a Reply