The First Question Of Politics: Ternary Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethics Vs Binary Ghetto Ethics


[T]he first question of politics (cooperation) is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?

If we cooperate for mutual gain then I agree not to kill you and take your stuff.

If you want to conduct a positive trade with me I will not kill you and take your stuff.

If you try to blackmail me or cheat me or my friends and allies, then I will kill you and take your stuff.

It is only rational not to kill you and take your stuff if you engage in mutually beneficial exchange.

You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and violence.

The logic of cooperation is ternary, not binary.

It is only binary when I’m in the ghetto and the monarchy leaves us alone as long as we don’t engage in violence.

The monarchy cannot trust either of us to tell the truth, so the monarchy limits its definition of crime to violence, while tolerating unethical and immoral behavior.

But that is not a voluntary society. That is a ghetto within a monarchy. Just like Crusoe’s island is a ghetto bounded by the violence of the sea.

But aristocracy, which possesses a WEALTH OF VIOLENCE is always in the proposition that voluntary exchange must be more rewarding than the application of violence, and that subjecting one’s self to criminal, immoral and unethical and conspiratorial is simply, always, and everywhere, unnecessary.

So for the weak, the choice is between cooperation and non-cooperation, the choice for the aristocracy is between cooperation, non-cooperation, and violence – whichever is more rewarding.

Rothbardians are engaged in a complex, obscurantist logical fallacy. Rothbardian anarcho capitalist ethics are PLAGUED with logical fallacies.

It is, like Marxism, a rich and varied set of logical fallacies. But logical fallacies none the less.

We don’t need the state. However, property rights as defined OR the NAP, are insufficient for the rational adoption of a voluntary society governed only by the rule of law, under the common law.

Leave a Reply