Author: Brian Wilton

I'm a libertarian. I prefer reading articles and books to listening to podcasts, although I hear that podcasts are more popular. Call it Picard's Syndrome.
No comments

On the Justification for The State

  By
Having justified individual rights, can we now justify the state? At first glance it would appear that the state has no right whatsoever to operate as we know states to operate. They claim the right to tax, which is confiscation of the property of innocent men, and the right to tell citizens what they can and can’t do, without regard to those citizens’ rights, as we have begun to describe them here. Can this be justified, or are all states unethical? 個人暩利を正圓化したずころで、政府を正圓化できるのか䞀芋したずころ、拙者が知る政府芋たいに行動する政府には存圚する暩利がない。政府は無眪である個人から所有を奪うず等しい課皎する。個人の暩利を無芖しお恣意に独裁する。これらの正圓化が可胜なのかそれずも、政府自䜓が䞍正なのか
As it happens, it can be justified. I’ve alluded to the process before, while discussing the choice between ethical individualism and ethical socialism. In short, the state is justified if, and only if, its citizens consent to its operation. 結局、正圓化が可胜でござる。倫理的な個人䞻矩ず瀟䌚䞻矩を遞択する時には䞀瞬觊れた。政府の䜜動が正圓化するために被治者が同意しなければならない。
If individuals have rights, they can waive those rights, conditionally or unconditionally. So, a group of individuals might propose to institute a state amongst themselves, and with everyone’s consent, that state will be justified. This is not to say that every individual has to sign the new state’s constitution, or even to have read it. Some of the individuals might delegate the decision to others, placing their rights in the hands of people they trust to judge the proposed state well. With enough iterations of congregation and delegation, even a world government could be justified. 個人には暩利があれば、その暩利を攟棄できる。で、個人の集団が政府を蚭けるこずを提案しお、党員の同意でその政府が正圓化される。被治者が党員、憲法に眲名する必芁も憲法を読んだ必芁もない。員の郚分が信頌する刀断を持぀他人を遞択暩の代衚ずしお掟遣するこずもある。
Due to the a priori economic proof that government is destructive of prosperity, establishment of such states is economically unwise in the extreme. Further, the existence of obstinate individualists in various locations basically dooms the “ethical state” from the outset. 政府は繁栄に砎壊的であるこずが前知の経枈孊で蚌明されおいる故、経枈孊的に政府の蚭けが非垞に愚かなこずでござる。たた、頑固な個人䞻矩者の存圚でこんな「倫理的な政府」は最初からありえないでござる。
To my knowledge, this process of securing individual consent — through delegates where individuals see fit to do so — has never justified any state larger than some village-sized experimental communes. These communes were doomed to one of two fates: to collapse and scatter when individual consent dwindled, or to consolidate into a typical state that doesn’t rely upon unanimous consent (and thereby lose ethical justification). If states-by-consent are not inherently impossible, it seems clear that they are not tenable under any circumstances they have been tested in to date. 拙者の知識䞊では、このような個人同意で政府を正圓化したこずが村の芏暡の詊隓コミュヌンに限られおいる。そのコミュヌンには二぀の運呜が埅っおいた。個人同意が果たした埌、砎局しお散らす運呜ず個人同意を捚お匷固する運呜でござる。同意䞊の政府自䜓が䞍可胜じゃないなら、今たで詊した条件では適わぬ。
All states but these experiments are ethically unjust. They are all more or less reliant upon imposition of their dictates on individuals without their consent. Where any state exercises sovereignty over even one man without his consent, that state is unjust. This is true of all forms of state, even democracies and republics, despite any popularity they enjoy. One man’s dissent is all it takes. この詊隓以倖、政府各個が倫理的に䞍正でござる。各個が倚少で同意なしに個人に独裁する。政府が䞀人の䞍同意者にも䞻暩を匷いれば、その政府が䞍正でござる。政府の圢状には関係がない。人気である民䞻制でも共和制でも関係ない。䞀人の䞍同意だけあれば、䞍正になる。
No historical state of significant scale has been just, no present state of significant scale is just, and the future prospects of a just state are bleak. 歎史䞊の正である倧芏暡な政府はない。珟状では正である倧芏暡な政府はない。未来に正である政府が珟れる芋蟌みがほずんどない。
No comments

Birth and Death

  By
Men, as ethical actors, have rights. But, we are not timeless; each of us is only here for a limited time. And it is only during that time that we are ethical actors. So, when do we start being ethical actors having rights worth considering, and when do we cease being the same and lose our rights? And related to that, if we start ethical life with any property, from whom is that property taken, and what happens to our property when ethical life ends? 倫理的な行動者ずしお人には暩利がある。だが人の時間が限られおいる。その時間の間だけ倫理的な行動者である。だから、い぀暩利を持぀倫理的な行動者になるそしお、い぀行動者じゃなくなっお暩利を倱うその時の所有に぀いお、倫理的な生呜を始たった時、ある最小限の所有を持぀誰から貰うそしお、倫理的な生呜が終わる時に、所有はどうなる
These questions are necessarily tied up in the questions of who is an ethical actor and what is not an ethical actor. Some might assert that ethical actors are only working-age men between the ages of 18 and 65, and everything else (including men outside of that age range) is not. Again, it is not our purpose to dictate the answer to that question. We only observe that ethical actors must become such at some point in time, and cease being such at a later point in time. この問題は必然で誰が倫理的な行動者か、䜕が倫理的な行動者じゃないかの二぀の問題ず絡み付いおいる。「十八歳から六十五歳たで、生産幎霢の人だけが倫理的な行動者だ」ず䞻匵するものがあるかも知らない。たた行っおおくが、その質問の答えは拙者の目的ではない。ただ、倫理的な行動者が「そんな者」になる時がある、そしおその埌のい぀かで「そんな者」じゃなくなるず述べる。
In describing this theory, we will assume as a convention that all living human beings are ethical actors. So, upon conception, a child is a human being (whereas before that point “he” was two gametes, which are not human, since they lacked a human’s full genetic data), and alive, so he becomes an ethical actor at that moment. Then, when he dies, he ceases to be an ethical actor. この理論の蚘述では、仮定ずしお党おの生きおいる人間が倫理的な行動者でござる。で、劊嚠の時点から子が人間であっおその時点たで二぀の人間の遺䌝子を䞍党で持った配偶子だけであっお、完党なる人間ではなかった、生きおいっお、その時点で倫理的な行動者になる。そしお、死ぬ時点で倫理的な行動者じゃなくなる。
All ethical actors possess the right to acquire property in the same ways: via homesteading, and via transfer from another ethical actor. But, do they start their ethical lives with any property? While intuitively I would say that they start owning their bodies, this necessarily means that if their body-matter were someone else’s property before, at the beginning of ethical life they deprive that other party of property without a contract — i.e., through an invalid property transfer. We must therefore conclude that ethical actors start life without any property at all, until they homestead some or receive some from others. A corollary of this observation is that one cannot commit crimes against such an ethical actor, as he owns no property, and we will find later that all crimes are violations of property rights. This can result in parental tyranny, but it follows from absolute property rights that cannot be stripped without consent. 党おの倫理的な行動者が所有を貰う方法を二぀持぀。ホヌムステッドをするこずで、そしお他の倫理的な行動者から受けるこずで。だが、倫理的な生呜の初めに所有を持぀のか盎芳的に䜓がこの所有ず蚀いたいが、それでは䜓の質量が他人の所有だったら子が契玄無しの䞍正な譲枡で所有を貰うこずになる。だから倫理的な行動者が䜕の所有もなく生呜を始たる、ホヌムステッドするか他人から受けるかたで。埌で「違反」は所有暩を䟵すこずず芋たすから、その垰結でそういう倫理的な行動者には違反は䞍可胜でござる。芪の圧制になるこずもあろうが、絶察所有暩から所有を承知無し譲枡するこずを吊定するしかない。
For sentimental reasons as well as economic reasons, I would advocate that parents raise their children well, which would include recognizing their self-ownership immediately, but I cannot dictate that behavior. 感情の理由ず経枈の理由で自䜓所有を認める育ち方を遞ぶ芪が良いず意芋するが、拙者がその行動を決定付けれない。
On the other end of the ethical actor’s life is their death. Once a man is no long an ethical actor, he no longer has any rights. His property, therefore, is lost to him. What happens to the ownership of that property? If he made contracts with others wherein he gifted to the other parties his various possessions in the event of his death, then the conditions of those contracts are fulfilled, and that property which he willed to those other parties become theirs. All his other property immediately becomes unowned, free for anyone to homestead. 倫理的な行動者の生呜の逆転は死でござる。人が倫理的な行動者じゃなくなるず、もう暩利はない。だからその人の所有が自分に倱われる。その所有暩はどうなる死の条件で所有を譲枡する契玄を結んだ堎合、条件が満たされるこずで他者に指名した所有が譲枡される。だがそう指名しなかった所有が無䞻になり、誰でもホムステッドできるものになる。
There are, here and there, cultural customs governing the disposition of a man’s property when he dies without leaving behind a will. These can be justified under the grounds that some executors homestead the unowned property by parsing it out to friends and family in accordance with the custom. Where the custom has support, the opportunist who swoops in to claim possessions from the recently dead (without wills) can be excoriated as virtually a grave robber, and brought to heel by social pressure. 各地には遺蚀無き亡き人の所有を配眮する文化の慣習がある。執行圹人が無䞻の所有を分けるこずでホヌムステッドするこずず芋れば慣習が正圓化する。その慣習の地では遺蚀無き亡き人の所有を貰う飛び掛けるご郜合䞻矩者が慣習を䟵した異端者ずしお瀟䌚的な圧力で慣習に埓わせるこずもある。
No comments

Property Transferral and Contracts

  By
Up to this point, we have considered how men acquire property rights, and described those rights as exclusive, rightful control of property. This has some important features that we have not touched upon yet, however, and very well deserve mention. 今たで、人が所有暩を埗るこずを考えた、そしおその所有暩を排他的な正しい所有制埡ず蚘述した。だが重芁な特城がただ残っおいる。
A feature of property rights is the right to transfer that property, in whole or in part, to other men. Now, we could conceive an ethic that does not allow this feature, but it would violate the basis we have chosen for this ethic — that it is individualist. The individualist basis means that we must acknowledge all individual rights we can conceive, until and unless some newly-conceived right conflicts with other rights; such rights, and only such rights, must be discarded, lest the ethic become self-contradictory. 所有を他人に譲枡するこずも所有暩の特城の䞀぀でござる。この特城を含たない倫理を思い぀けるが、そんな倫理がここで遞択した根幹ず矛盟する。個人䞻矩ず䞡立できない。個人䞻矩の根幹䞊では矛盟が生たれない限り思い぀ける個人暩利を党郚受け入れる。
The ethic must have individual rights that are maximal while still being fully internally consistent. この倫理は完党に䞀貫するこずで最倧限の個人暩利を認めなければならない。
We could observe that denying the right of property transfer would have dire consequence to the prosperity of all parties involved. While that would be an accurate observation, it is only pertinent to a consequentialist ethic- and ours is a deontological ethic. The observation is well and good for other purposes, such as convincing consequentialists to adhere to our ethic, but in constructing our ethic, it is irrelevant. 所有譲枡を吊定するこずが党人類の反映に厄介な圱響を生むず述べれる。だが、正確な芳枬であっおも、垰結䞻矩の倫理だけに論倖ではない。本の倫理は矩務論の倫理であるから論倖でござる。芳枬には別の甚に䜿える䟋えば、垰結䞻矩者を倫理に埓う理由を蚌明するこずが、倫理を組み立おるこずには無甚でござる。
For the specifics of how property rights can be transferred, Rothbard’s “Property Rights and the Theory of Contracts” (chapter 19 of The Ethics of Liberty) is an excellent system; I would only object to his claim that voluntary slave contracts are unenforceable. Walter Block has also criticized this facet of Rothbard’s theory. 所有譲枡の詳现に぀いお、ロスバヌドの「所有暩ず契玄の理論」「自由の倫理」の第十九章が優秀な䜓系でござる。拙者の唯䞀の議論は圌の志願な奎隷契玄を拒む䞻匵でござる。りォルタヌ・ブロックもロスバヌドの理論のこの点を批刀したこずがある。
No comments

The Homestead as the Fruits of Man’s Labor

  By
Having established that the only rational choices for the basis of an ethic are individualism and socialism, and having chosen to base our ethic on individualism, we can now turn to how the ethic can construct rights. The homestead principle is the vehicle. I assert that man has a right to the fruits of his labor. Where the labor is upon unowned resources, it is proper to say that that labor makes those resources his property, to the extent that — and for the duration that — his labor bears fruit. 個人䞻矩ず瀟䌚䞻矩しか有利な倫理根幹はないず芋たずころ、個人䞻矩を根幹ずしお遞んだずころで、今から暩利の組み立おに目を留めれる。その組み立お方法はホヌムステッドでござる。人は努力の賜物に暩利があるず䞻匵する。その努力が無䞻な資源に働く堎合、努力が資源を本人の所有にする、努力が賜物を付く皋床ず存続に限っお。
This means that, unlike other theorists in this tradition, I incorporate an expiration in the ownership of property. Further, this means that property rights diminish over time, as labor’s fruits diminish. When we consider punishment for violations of the ethic, violating a attenuated property right will be seen to be less serious an offense than violating a fresher property right. これで、䌝統の別の理論化ず違っお拙者が所有に満了を組み蟌む。たた、経時的に努力の賜物が枛るほど所有も枛るこずになる。倫理の違反の賠償を考えるずきに来たら匱たった所有暩利を犯すこずが新鮮な所有暩利を犯すこずほど重床ではない。
This feature is necessary to allow a mechanism for property abandonment that does not require the property owner to positively renounce ownership. Without this feature, any time an owner abandoned a property without notifying anybody, it would forever be ‘owned’ de jure (since it was never renounced), and so it would be wrong to trespass (in theory). All archaeology would be presumptive trespass, unless the archaeologists could secure adequate records that a site was renounced properly or locate the original owners’ heir(s) and get explicit permission. この特城が必芁でござる。いなければ、所有委付の方法は所有者の圢匏䞊の棄暩しかない。故に所有者が棄暩無しで所有を捚おる床に法埋䞊では所有物で続けれるこずで他人が氞遠に䜿えられない。考叀孊党䜓が芋なしに䟵害でござる,考叀孊者が棄暩蚘録か所有継承蚱可が無ければ。
Let us consider, as an example, a sandcastle. A man goes to an unowned beach, and constructs a sandcastle. My theory finds that the man owns that sandcastle. Hence, it would be wrong for another man to come along and wreck it. However, should the owner leave for some hours or days — however long, until the elements do their work — when he returns, and his sandcastle is gone, then he no longer owns it; he does not even own the land where it used to stand. 䟋ずしお砂の城を考えよう。人が無䞻な海蟺に行き砂城を䜜る。拙者の論理䞊では本人が砂城を所有する。だから他人が来お砂城を壊すのが䞍正でござる。だが、所有者が砂城を眮いお行きお数時間か数日間か倩資が削る時間が経った埌戻ったら、無くなった砂城がもう本人の所有物ではない。立っおいた土地でも所有しない。
Other theories would assert that the man either never truly owned the sandcastle, or that he continued to own the land on which it stood after it was gone. I find both of these alternatives unsatisfactory. The sandcastle might not be a valuable investment in the typical sense, but I would consider it a useful demonstration for teaching the basics of property rights. What one learns in the sandbox can be constructively applied outside the sandbox. 他の論理䞊では、本人が最初から砂城に所有暩が無かったこずに、それずも無くなった埌にも所有暩があるこずにする。拙者にはこの䞡方が意に満たない。正垞では砂城が高䟡な投資ではないが、所有暩の基瀎を教えるいい方法ず思う。砂堎で教わったこずが砂堎倖では効果的に䜿える。
Now, one might say of my theory, “That allows everybody to homestead everything, by asserting that the ‘labor’s fruits’ are the changes wrought by the labor, and by application of the Butterfly Effect, every man can claim their labor has changed the entire world (over time), and that those are the fruits, and therefore they homesteaded everything in the world.” Unfortunately for this line of reasoning, men are not omniscient. We cannot track all of the changes that our labor wreaks. It may be true that every man’s labor changes the whole world, but where a man can’t prove that his labor effected a specific change, it is as good as if he had effected no change at all. 䞀぀の意矩を考えよう。「それでは、みんなが党おをホヌムステッド出来る。努力の賜物ずは努力に代わったものであるならバタフラむ効果の䜿甚でみんなが長時間で䞖界を代わっお党䞖界をホヌムステッドしたこずになる」、ず。この理屈には残念だが、人が党知で無い限り無効な理屈でござる。努力の効果の党おを分かられない。各々の人が党䞖界を代わるが本圓かも知らないが、人が努力で具䜓的な倉曎を起こした蚌拠が無ければ無効化ず同じ結果にしかならない。
No comments

On the Impossibility of an Ethical Regression Theorem

  By
Ludwig von Mises developed the monetary regression theorem, solving a circular value-of-money question: Money is valuable to us because we can buy things with it; we can buy things with it because it is valuable to us; whence came its value, then? Mises solved this by deducing that people gradually attributed value to money commodities over time; eventually, regressing far enough back in history, all commodities we now consider “money” were not monetary commodities, but examples of any commodity. ルヌトノィヒ・フォン・ミヌれスが金銭的回垰理論ず発した。その理論が埪環的な金銭䟡倀問題を解いた。金でものを買えるから金には䟡倀がある、そしお金には䟡倀があるから物を買える。ならば、金の䟡倀がどこでどうやっお由来しおいる人が匥久にかけお埐々に金商品に䟡倀を䞎えた、歎史に遠く回垰すれば今では「金」ず思われる商品が党お普通の商品でした、ずミヌれスは論理した。
I recently contemplated such a regression for establishing a basis for ethics. I have stated before that one can argue for absolute individualism, or one can argue for absolute socialism, but any and all compromise positions are completely arbitrary, and should be rejected out of hand for being so. 最近、そう回垰すれば倫理の根拠を芋぀けるかも、ず拙者が熟考した。前には完党的な個人䞻矩に理論ができる、そしお完党的な瀟䌚䞻矩に理論が出来る、ず䞻匵した。たた、その二぀のあらゆる劥協が恣意的であっお論理的に吊定するべき理論でござる、ず䞻匵した。
What if the starting point for ethics should be treated in a manner similar to money? The present value of money is neither zero nor infinity, which would be analogous to the ethical absolutes of individualism and socialism. It is, at any given time, at a “compromise position.” だが、倫理の原点が金みたいに回垰するものだったらどうなる倫理の絶察極地である個人䞻矩ず瀟䌚䞻矩には類䌌する零ず無限倧が金の䟡倀ではない。い぀も「劥協点」でいられる。
What if the current state of ethics, too, is the result of countless iterations of a process, and so its location at a given point at a given time is not only not arbitrary, but justified? We could regress back to the original state of ethics, and justify all the steps that led us to the given point and given time. 類䌌的に、倫理の珟圚状態もある過皋の無数の反埩の結果であれ、任意時の珟圚点は恣意的でなく、正圓であるのでは倫理の発端たで回垰でき、その任意時の珟圚点たで手順を正圓化できる。
If this theorem were valid, then a state of ethics which is a compromise between individualism and socialism can be justified. この理論が劥圓ならば、個人䞻矩ず瀟䌚䞻矩の劥協の倫理的状態が正圓化できる。
Ultimately, this theorem is impossible. The historical ebb and flow of the conflict between individualism and socialism is not analogous to the drift of the value of money between zero and infinity. First, money started at zero (that is, zero value as a medium of exchange; as a commodity itself, it still had use-value). If analogous, that means that ethics must have started at pure individualism (because men possess individual wills, minds, and souls). But the continuity of the value of money resets every generation; a newborn child values gold (or whatever money commodity) at zero until he comes to recognize, accept, and adopt the prevailing value of money. 結論的にこの理論が䞍可胜でござる。歎史䞊の個人䞻矩ず瀟䌚䞻矩の干満が金の零ず無限倧の間で倉動ず類䌌しない。たずは、金が零から始たった。亀代媒䜓ずしお零䟡倀で、商品ずしお䜿甚䟡倀があったけど。類䌌だったら、人には個人的な意思、心、魂があるから倫理も完党個人䞻矩から始たったはずでござる。だが、代々に金の䟡倀が零に戻るんだ。赀ちゃんが金銭商品を零に䟡倀する、行き枡る金の䟡倀が分かっお認めお取り入れるたで。
This means that if the analogy holds, then every child is born with the rights attendant to pure individualism — among which is the right to reject socialism outright. To justify any socialism, every child, in every generation, would have to freely waive his rights to the social power. He could not be unconditionally deprived of them at birth, or in infancy, or as a child, or during adolescence, any more than he could be made to value money at a certain minimum value for the rest of his life. 類䌌するならば、各々の子䟛が玔粋個人䞻矩の暩利で生たれる。その暩利が瀟䌚䞻矩を拒絶する暩利をも含む。瀟䌚䞻矩を正圓化するには代々に各々の子䟛が自由に個人暩利を瀟䌚に譲るこずが必芁でござる。出生にも幌少期にも思春期にも無条件で暩利を剥ぐのは䞍正でござる。人生の残りたで金の最小限䟡倀を教化するず同じく䞍可胜なこずでござる。
The proposal might arise that children learn a pledge or oath of allegience in some areas of the world, and recite it; and having pledged or sworn allegience, it is binding for life. This is wholly invalid on individualist grounds. Individualist ethics operates on contracts, not on pledges or oaths. If this were any form of contract, then both parties have contractual obligations. No pledge I know of gives these obligations — with regard to either party — with any degree of specificity. Considering the gravity of the rights supposedly waived and the impositions supposedly justified thereby, its vagueness renders it impossible to enforce; neither party could rightly assert what the pledge bound the two parties to do. 幟぀かの地方には子䟛が忠誠の誓玄を唱えるこずがあっお、そう誓っお人生の最果おたでしばられる、ずの提案が来るだろう。個人䞻矩では党く䞍劥圓な提案でござる。個人䞻矩が誓玄でなく契玄で䜜動する。契玄であれば、䞡方には責務がある。拙者の知っおいる制玄が党おその責務䞡方にもを具䜓的に蚘述しない。仮定で譲れる暩利ず仮定で正圓化した抌し付けの重芁性を考慮すれば、有耶無耶で適甚できない。䞡方も誓玄の瞛りを正しく䞻匵できない。
(This may very well be purposeful; those who design such pledges may not want to lock their favored party in to obligations on their part, nor to limit the obligations of the counterparty.) 故意にそうなったかも。そんな誓玄を蚭蚈したものの莔屓の䞀方に責務を抌し付けたくなくお、他方に責務を限りたくなくおそうなるだろう。
Due to this (among other justifications), pledges and oaths recited by children do not move the ethical state of things one iota. これず倚々にある正圓化の元で、子䟛の誓玄が倫理の状態を䞀分䞀厘も動かさない。
Having found that even if we assumed the individualism/socialism compromise were operating on principles analogous to the regression theorem of the value of money, it would only justify any socialism where pure individualism does so (that is, only with unanimous consent), we conclude that this analogous regression theorem of ethics is entirely nugatory. 個人䞻矩ず瀟䌚䞻矩の劥協が金銭的回垰理論ず類䌌する原理で䜜甚しおも、完党個人䞻矩ず同じく党䌚䞀臎でしか瀟䌚䞻矩を正圓化する。そう芋぀けた故、この倫理回垰理論が完党に無効だず結論する。
No comments

On “a peculiar form of lottery tickets“

  By
In “Against Fiduciary Media”, Chapter 7 of The Economics and Ethics of Private Property (originally printed in the Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics 1, no. 1 (Spring 1998)), Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Jörg Guido HÃŒlsmann, and Walter Block attempt to refute George Selgin and Lawrence White’s article “In Defense of Fiduciary Media”, from the Review of Austrian Economics 9 no. 2 (1996): 83-107. Selgin and White’s article itself is a reply to a criticism by Hoppe of earlier writings by Selgin and White; Hoppe’s critism is found in the concluding pages of Chapter 6. 『私有財産の経枈孊ず理論孊』の第䞃章「受蚗資金に察しお」元は『オヌストリア孊掟経枈孊の季刊誌』䞀、第䞀春幎に発行したではハンスヘルマン・ホッペずむェルク・ギド・ヒュルスマンずりォルタヌ・ブロックが『オヌストリア孊掟経枈孊の査読』九、第二幎からゞョヌゞ・セルギンずロヌレンス・ホワむトの「受蚗資金の擁護論」を反論しようずする。セルギンずホワむトの論説自䜓がホッペのたた前の二人の論説ぞの非難でござる。
I don’t find Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block’s ethical argument convincing. Given, however, that I have not read any of the two’s writing outside of Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block’s quotes of them, and I’ve come to agree with the two of them, at the very least Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block have not presented the two’s arguments in strawman form. 拙者には䞉人の理論的論法が説埗力を持たない。䞉人の匕甚句以倖で二人の文章を読んだこずがないのに拙者が二人に賛成になったので、せめおも䞉人は二人の論法をストロヌマンのように提出しおいない。
I won’t be covering the economic arguments here; it’s outside the scope of this blog. 経枈孊的な論法を怜査する぀もりはない。このブログの範囲倖でござる。
The most surprising thing about this chapter is its lack of any reference to Hoppe’s frank admission, in Chapter 6 of the same book, that Selgin and White had introduced a practice that, if implemented, “would indeed dispose of the charge of fraud” (p. 201). 章の䞀番驚くこずが「あるもの」を蚀及しおいないこず。同本の第六章にホッペが二人の論法に「いかにも詐欺の非難を凊分する」習慣があるずの率盎な承認でござる。
Either Hoppe and his new co-authors have conveniently overlooked a portion of Selgin and White’s article, or Selgin and White were rather remiss in not trumpeting, “No fraud, says Hoppe,” therein. Hoppe did express an economic opinion afterwards (it would turn banknotes into “a peculiar form of lottery tickets,” which is too colorful a metaphor to let pass—so it now features in this post’s title), but ethically, the argument is over, until Hoppe clarifies or retracts his statement. “Charge of fraud disposed of; quod erat demonstrandum.” ホッペずその新たな同胞がセルギン達の蚘事の䞀郚を芋萜ずしたか、セルギン達が「詐欺無し、ずホッペが曞く」を蚀い広めずこずでかなり怠慢でしたか。ホッペがその認めの埌に挱石枕流で「玙幣がおかしな宝くじになる」ずいう経枈的な意芋をだしたが、倫理的では議論が終わった、ホッペが詐欺の解決のこずを撀回するたで。「詐欺の非難が凊分された、」、ず。
Nevertheless, we have some interesting ethical arguments to examine. Structurally, this chapter is composed of an introduction, three sub-chapters addressing ethics, one sub-chapter addressing economics, and a conclusion. だけど、ずおも面癜い倫理理論を解説するこずが出来る。この章の構造が玹介、䞉぀の倫理節、䞀぀の経枈孊節、そしお結論になる。
The first ethics sub-chapter’s argument is that all demand deposits are by nature bailment contracts and cannot be classified, in ethical terms, as a loan contract. Before they even state this, however, they give the proper answer, straight from Selgin and White: “Whether a particular bank is committing fraud by holding fractional reserves must depend on the terms of the title-transfer agreements between the bank and its customers” (p. 209). Exactly correct. Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block say (quite repetitively) that two people can’t own the same thing at the same time, and a demand deposit is title to, and ownership of, the money, and money-lending can only be done by the money-owner, so by lending money, the bank is claiming ownership thereof. 倫理節の第䞀説の理論が「預金通貚が本性でベむルメント契玄で、倫理的に融資契玄になられない」ずのこずだ。だが、そう䞻匵する前に、セルギン達からの正解な反論を曞く。「特定な銀行が郚分準備銀行制床で詐欺を犯すか吊かは銀行ずその顧客の所有転送契玄の条件に䟝存する」。たさにその通りでござる。ホッペ達がワンパタヌンで二人が同じものを同時に所有できないので、預金通貚が金の所有であるので、貞金は金の所有者にしか出来ないこずで貞金するこずで銀行が金の所有を䞻匵する、ず。
(What about money-lending done with the permission of the money-owner?) じゃあ、金の所有者の蚱可の䞋での貞金はどうなる
Here’s a key assertion by Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block: “[Selgin and White] do not provide a praxeological explanation and reconstruction of the origin of such a peculiar entity [fiduciary media] and state of affairs [fractional reserve banking]” (p. 214). ホッペ達の重芁な䞻匵の䞀぀が、「圌らセルギン達がこの可笑しな存圚受蚗資金や状況郚分準備銀行制床の起源の行動科孊的な解説ず構成を指定しない」。
Alright, I’ll provide one. In fact, I’ll provide two! じゃあ、拙者が指定する。実際、二぀を
For the first, let’s start with a bailment of money. A bailor transfers money to a bailee, which the bailee must hold in trust until the bailor demands the money; so, the bailment endures until the bailor terminates the contract. The bailee cannot use the money in any way (that would be a loan, not a bailment). If the bailee does use the money, that is a violation of the contract, and punishable as a tort. This is, if my assessment of their theory is correct, how Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block define the standard deposit-bailment. However, the terms of the contract are up to the bailor and bailee, including the liability that falls on the bailee in the event he uses the money in some way. They have the ethical right to agree that the bailee can use the money (e.g., lend it out) and that the bailor will not hold him liable for that. A standard Hoppe-HÃŒlsmann-Block bailment, with a waiver of certain liability. 䞀぀目では、金のベむルメントから始めよう。寄蚗者が委蚗者に金を䞊げ、委蚗者は寄蚗者が求めるたでその金を信頌できるように保持しなければならない。で、ベむルメントが寄蚗者が契玄を終了するたで継続する。委蚗者がその金を利甚できないそれでベむルメントではなく、貞金になる。委蚗者が金を利甚すれば、契玄違反になっお䞍法行為ずしお委蚗者が眰させられる。これがホッペ達の暙準ベむルメント契玄でござる拙者が正確的に分かるなら。だが、契玄の条件を決めるのは委蚗者ず寄蚗者でござる。それは金を利甚した委蚗者に萜ずす眰をも含む。委蚗者が金を貞金ずかで利甚しおも寄蚗者が眰しないこずにする合意する倫理的な暩利は、二人が持っおいる。特定した眰する暩利を暩利攟棄した暙準ホッペ‐ヒュルスマン‐ブロックのベむルメントでござる。
The bailor retains ownership, but the bailee can use the money, with no criminal penalties, until the bailor demands it. 寄蚗者が所有暩を枡さないが、委蚗者が凊眰無しで委蚗した金を䜿甚出来る、寄蚗者が求めるたで。
For the second, let’s start with a loan of money. A lender transfers money to a borrower, and the borrower owns it and may use it as he sees fit until the loan expires, whereupon he returns principal and interest to the lender. During the loan, the lender does not own the money, but instead owns a claim to future money from the borrower. For this explanation, it will have to be a “call loan,” as described　by a quote from Selgin and White in footnote 11 on page 215. Since Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block failed to acknowledge that a call loan can exist, I must start by constructing it from a series of fixed-length loans. So, the lender and borrower begin with a one-minute loan (in that same footnote 11, Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block admit that the duration of a loan is only a matter of degree, not of kind). One minute passes, and the lender returns to the borrower. However, instead of payment of principal and interest, the lender and borrower agree to compound the loan instead. The new loan amount is the principal and interest of the old loan. The two iterate this pattern for a while, then they agree to an improved arrangement: the loan will automatically compound, without the lender returning to the borrower every time (freeing up valuable time for both parties). This compounding loan can be terminated at any iteration (i.e., at any minute) at the option of either party. Thus, we have constructed a call loan from the more common fixed-term loan. 二぀目は、貞金から始めよう。貞手が借手に金の所有暩を䞊げる。それで借手が融資が終えるたで所有しお勝手に䜿甚出来る。その時が来るず、借手が貞手に元利を払う。貞金の間、貞手がその金を所有しないが、指定した時に借手から金を貰う暩利を持぀。解説のためにコヌル・ロヌンに必芁がある、の脚泚でセルギン達からの匕甚で蚘述されたようなもの。ホッペ達がコヌル・ロヌンなんお存圚を認めなかったから固定時間貞金の連続から構成しよう。では、貞手ず借手が䞀分の融資を亀わす同じ脚泚で、ホッペ達が融資の期間が類の差別でなく床の差別であるこずを認めた。䞀分埌、借手が貞手に戻る。だが、元利を払う倉わりに貞手ず借手が融資を犏利にするず決める。新しい貞金が終了した貞金の元利になる。二人がしばらく繰り返すず、改善した蚭営に合意する。借手が貞手に戻らなくおも貞し金が自動的に犏利する。䞡手が手間を省ける。この犏利融資が任意の期間ずいうず、任意の分にいずれの片手の遞択で終了される。それで、固定融資からコヌル・ロヌンを構成した。
The borrower owns the money for the duration of the call loan, but the lender can call it at any time and cash out. 借手がコヌル・ロヌンの期間では貞金を所有するが、貞手がい぀でもコヌルしお貞金を匕き出せる。
The difference between these two constructions is in which of the money substitutes will be money certificates, and which will be fiduciary media. Where there is a modified bailment, the depositor (bailor) holds the money certificates, and the bank’s (bailee’s) loans are the fiduciary media; where there is a depositor-to-bank call loan, the depositor (lender) holds the fiduciary media, and the bank’s (borrower’s) loans are the money certificates. この二぀の構成の差はどの金代甚が金蚌曞になるずどれが信頌金になるこずでござる。倉曎ベむルメントでは、預金者寄蚗者が金蚌曞を持っお、銀行委蚗者が信頌金を持぀。コヌル・ロヌンの堎合、預金者貞手が信頌金を持っお、銀行借手が金蚌曞を持぀。
From there, the bank attempting to keep loans and reserves in an optimally profitable balance follows naturally from the bank’s profit motive; hence, fractional reserve banking will result. どの道、それから銀行が融資ず準備の金を最適な利益をもたらす構成を維持しようこずが銀行の営利目的から圓然になる。だから、郚分準備銀行制床が起こる。
But wait, there’s more! I present you with a bonus, third construction! だが終わっおいないサヌビスずしお䞉぀目の構成を指定する
Let’s start with a loan of money. This time, we’ll take a time deposit. The depositor-lender can notify the bank that he’s terminating the loan, whereupon the bank-borrower has a period of time (hence “time deposit”) to let its own loans expire so as to have money on hand to pay back the depositor-lender. However, the bank decides to set aside a fund—a reserve, if you will—for a program. While the bank has money in this reserve, it lets its depositor-lenders take their money at any time, lending them money for precisely the duration contracted in the time deposit. As a service to its customers, this loan has no interest! In effect, the depositor-lenders can get their money on demand, with no time discount, even though they only hold time deposits. Now, the depositor-lenders only possess titles to future money, not titles to present money, but if the bank successfully operates their “special program” for long enough, their customers—and, with time, the market at-large—may come to see their deposits as being effectively (if not legally) as good as titles to present money. Should the bank’s accounts then be accepted as money substitutes (despite being loans) by the market, then the bank is de jure perfectly legal, even according to Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block, but they are operating de facto exactly as a fractional reserve bank would. 貞金から始めよう。今床は、時間預金でござる。預金者兌貞手が銀行に融資の終了を知らせる。ず、銀行兌借手が指定した時間だから時間預金で自分の融資を切れお預金者の元利を集めれる。だが、銀行が「準備」を甚意するこずに決める。銀行がこの準備に元手を持っおいれば、預金者がい぀でも金を匕き出せる。名目䞊では、これが出金ではなく、預金者ぞの貞金でござる。期間は時間預金に指定した時間ず同じ。そしお、客ぞのサヌビスずしおこの貞金は無利子でござる効果的に、預金者が時間預金しかもたないのにい぀でも金を倀匕き無しで出金できる。では、預金者が珟圚でなく未来で金を求める暩利しか持たないが、銀行が銖尟良くその準備を維持出来れば、客そしお、やがお総垂堎がその銀行の預金を効果的に金ず等しいず考えるこずになる。銀行の預金が垂堎に融資なのに金代甚ずしお受け入られれば、その銀行がホッペ達の理論䞊でもデ・ゞュリ完党に合法だけど、デ・ファクト郚分準備銀行制床を行っおいる。
In each of these three constructions, there would be differences to the execution of withdrawals when the bank runs out of reserves, in accordance with how the present/future ownership is structured. 䞉぀の構成では、準備が尜きるず出金の実行には違いが出る、珟圚所有ず未来所有の構成に埓っお。
Although this is an economic statement rather than an ethical one, let me assert that there could be a market for each one—though it could be that only two, one, or even none stands up to the market test. 経枈孊の䞻匵だけど、どれにも賌買局が出る可胜性がある。が、二぀にしか、䞀぀にしか、䞀぀にも賌買局が出ない可胜性もある。
The second ethics sub-chapter’s argument is a defense of Chapter 6’s assertion that “fractional reserve banking involves the making of contracts regarding the property of third parties” (p. 200, also quoted on p. 221). Curiously, in Chapter 6, Hoppe cited three parties that are victimized (“all other money owners,” “all depositors,” and “all other borrowers”, p. 200-201), but now he, HÃŒlsmann, and Block only defend two—the first, sort of, in this sub-chapter, and the second, implicitly, in the previous. Perhaps they realized how the last one wasn’t really defensible. 倫理節の第二説の理論が第六章の「郚分準備銀行制床が第䞉者の所有に぀いお契玄を䌎う」、そしおに匕甚されずの䞻匵の擁護論する。䞍思議に、第六章ではホッペが第䞉者の䞉皮金の所有者の党員ず預金者の党員ず他の借手の党員、‐を挙げたけど、いたではホッペ達が二皮しか防衛しない。この第二説で第䞀皮を郚分的に防衛する。前の説で第二皮を暗黙的に防衛した。第䞉皮が無理だず気付いたかな
Anyway, this argument asserts that, although conceding that “spill-overs from others’ actions to the value of [a man]’s property . . . are an inescapable free-market phenomenon and not a violation of [his] private-property rights, [whereas] physical invasions of [his] property . . . are of course inconsistant with the protection of [his] property rights” (p. 221, quoted from Selgin and White), other money owners’ properties are physically affected. ずにかく、この理論がセルギン達の「他人の行動で人の所有の䟡倀にの波及は 避けられない自由垂堎珟象で、その人の所有暩の違反ではないが、人の所有の物理的な䟵略 はもちろん人の所有暩に䞍敎合です。」を認めるが、他の金の所有は物理的に圱響が出る。
This was flabbergasting at first. The victims are “all other money owners,” and “[i]t does have a physical effect” (p. 223). Are Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block really asserting that every issue of fiduciary media has a physical effect on all money everywhere in the world? Under what laws of physics? 最初に読んだ時、床肝を抜くずころでござった。被害者が「金の所有者の党員」で「物理的な圱響がある」。ホッペ達が本圓に「信頌金を発行する床に党䞖界の金の党郚に物理的な効果がある」ずいうのかどんな物理法則で
But Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block don’t actually write “all other money owners” in this chapter. Hoppe only wrote that in the previous chapter. Herein, there is “some current … owner’s property” and “other people’s property” (p. 223). They could be retreating from “all” to “some,” which makes some sense in light of their argument that other people’s money is misappropriated. In that case, however, the way that they present themselves as defending the same thing Hoppe defended before—when they have actually changed it—could lead the reader to suspect them of moving the goalposts. だが実際、この章ではホッペ達が「金の所有者の党員」を曞かない。それはホッペが前章で曞いたこずだ。この章では、「ずある珟圚の 所有者のもの」ず「他人の所有」しかそんな蚀葉が出ない。ホッペ達が「党郚」から「䞀郚」に退去しおいるようだ。他人の金が䜿い蟌たれる䞻匵だから筋が立぀が、ホッペ達がなぜホッペの前の䞻匵に擁護論をやっおいるように曞くんだ実際に察象の䞻匵が代わったからホッペ達の読者がムヌビング・ゎヌルポストの疑を考えるずころでござろう。
Nevertheless, in this chapter they neither ask nor answer the important question, “Exactly whose money is misappropriated?” It’s a rather shocking oversight. その疑を眮いおも、この章には圌らが倧切な質問、「具䜓的に誰の金が䜿い蟌たれる」を問わずで答えない。驚くほどの手萜ちでござる。
The third ethics sub-chapter’s argument is an attack on Selgin and White’s assertion that many people choosing fractional reserve banking is proof that they benefit from it, and therefore restriction of the practice is an illegitimate intervention in the market. 倫理節の第䞉説の理論でセルギン達のずある䞻匵を攻撃する。セルギン達が郚分準備銀行制床を遞ぶ人が倚いこずでその人に利がある蚌拠であるから、その制床を制限するこずは垂堎に非摘出な介入だ、ず䞻匵する。
This should be a much shorter sub-chapter than it is; Selgin and White are clearly mistaken this time. Insofar as they are saying it is just because many people support it is an argumentum ad populum—and therefore fallacious—and all the talk about “demonstrated preference” and “benefits” (p. 224, quoted from Selgin and White) are economic assertions—and therefore of no ethical force. Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block spend ten pages writing up analogies and denouncements to what I’ve dismissed in one sentence. この説がもっず短いべき説でござる。今床、セルギン達が明らかに間違っおいる。倚くの人が支持するから正であるずいうなら、衆人に蚎える論蚌だから誀謬でござる。そしお「実蚌した遞奜」ず「利」、セルギン達からの匕甚の話は経枈孊の䞻匵だから倫理的に無力でござる。拙者が二文で解いたのに、ホッペ達が十面を䜿っお類䟋ず非難を曞く。
Therein, they attempt to “prove” that fractional reserve banking requires a state, based on the assertion that free-market courts would accept their ethical theory, and therefore fractional reserve banking only exists because of state protection from that market force. その䞀郚で、郚分準備銀行制床には政府が必芁だず”蚌拠”しようずする。自由垂堎の裁刀所が圌らの倫理理論を受け入れるから郚分準備銀行制床が存圚するこずはその垂堎力から政府に守られおいる故だ。
Whether that ethical theory is correct or not is the exact thing under debate here; you can’t just assume that good free-market courts would adopt it, then find—wonder of wonders—that only bad state courts would allow fractional reserve banking, and therefore fractional reserve banking requires a state (which is to say, requires injustice), so should be forbidden in the ethical theory. That’s a circular argument, since you’re assuming the ethical theory is correct. その倫理理論が正しいか吊かは議論の係争物そのものでござる。善である垂堎裁刀所が取り入れるず仮定しお、奇跡的に悪である政府裁刀所だけが蚱すず芋぀けお、郚分準備銀行制床には政府ずいうず、䞍正が必芁だず続いお、故に郚分準備銀行制床が倫理理論で犁じられるこずにするこおが出来ない。仮定で倫理理論が正しいにするから埪環論法でござる。
A different, valid argument would be to assume that your opponents’ ethical theory is accepted by the free-market court, and then demonstrate that it is insufficient to actually accomplish its aim. 盞手の倫理理論が垂堎裁刀所に取り入れられおも実際に意図を果たせないず実蚌するこずは有効な理論の䞀぀でござる。
Do you see where this is going? You do? Good. どこ行っおるか分かるのか分かるんだよし。
So, the free-market courts accept the theory of Hoppe, HÃŒlsmann, and Block. Some rabid anti-fractional reserve activists start suing banks. Given the Hoppe-HÃŒlsmann-Block theory construes demand deposits as bailments, the primary victims of fractional reserve banking are the bailor-depositors (and possibly “some others” whose money has been “physically affected”). They are the victims, so it is they who have the right to demand reparations from the criminal banks. So, they go to court against the banks where they hold deposits. で、垂堎裁刀所がホッペ達の理論を取り入れる。過激な察郚分準備掻動家が銀行を詐欺蚎蚟を行う。ホッペ達の理論では預金はベむルメントで、䞀次の被害者が寄蚗者兌預金者埌、金が「物理的に障れた」「ある他人」かもでござる。被害者だから、犯眪者の銀行から賠償を求められるのはその人達でござる。で、掻動家が実際に預金しおいる銀行を蚎えお裁刀所に行く。
Surely a good way to get yourself black-listed by the banking industry. But I digress. 銀行産業に黒衚されるこずにいい方法でござる。あ、すたん、脱線でござる。
Now, going to court isn’t an automatic favorable judgment, even with your theory at the helm. Following Rothbard’s theory, the burden of proof falls on the accuser, so the depositor has to prove that the bank is operating on fractional reserves. The bank most likely won’t disclose its balance sheet, and can’t be legally obligated to do so. That the deposit bears interest is evidence, but by itself may not suffice to convict. That depends on the standard of evidence required by the court, a curiously rare topic in libertarian ethical theory. I always go back to The Ethics of Liberty, but this is one point it doesn’t address. I would lean towards the “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard. The simple fact of interest paid on a few accounts may not suffice for it, as there are other reasonable explanations. 蚎えるのは自動的な順調刀決ではない、自分の理論が取り入れられおも。ロスバヌドの論理では立蚌が蚎人の責任で、預金者が銀行に郚分準備で働いおいるこずを蚌明しなければならない。銀行が法的に貞借察照衚を曝け出される矩務はなくお、自由でそうしないでござろう。預金に利子が付くのは蚌だた、それだけで有眪の刀決が出ないかも知らない。裁刀所の蚌明の皋床に䟝存する。蚌明の皋床は完党自由䞻矩の倫理理論で䞍思議に珍しい話題でござる。拙者はい぀も「自由の倫理」に戻るが、その本も察凊しない。拙者なら、合理的な疑いに決めた。他の合理的な説明もあるから利子の存圚だけで蚌明の皋床を満たさないかも知らない。
That’s one potential failure point. 可胜な障害点でござる。
Supposing the bank is convicted. What is the punishment? Based on single proportionality, they refund the deposit. Hardly a punishment at all, given the depositors could simply have withdrawn it without a lawsuit. After the depositors’ black-listing, they’ll have a hard sell trying to get the remaining depositors to throw in lawsuits of their own; these activists would have a better time calling for boycotts, because that would at least save the time and trouble of court cases. In order for the movement to be at all sustainable, double proportionality (such as Dr. Block has advanced elsewhere, and which I also dispute) would have to be accepted by the courts as well. Lacking that, the prohibition of fractional reserves is a dead letter. 銀行が有眪だず仮定しよう。賠償はなんだ䞀重比䟋の刑眰原則では、預金を返金させられる。預金者が蚎蚟無し出金できたから眰なんおならない。その預金者の黒衚の埌、残る預金者の協力を取埗するのは難しいだろう。蚎蚟の時間ず手間が省けるから、掻動家が䞍買を行ったほうがいい。持続可胜な掻動が欲しければ、二重比䟋の凊眰原則ブロック博士が他所で提唱したが、それも拙者が吊定するが裁刀所に取り入れられる必芁がある。それがないず、郚分準備の犁止は死文でござる。
That’s another potential failure point. たた、可胜な障害点でござる。
So, in order to assert that the ethical prohibition of fractional reserve banking would actually drive such banks out of the market, there are a couple of ancillary assertions that need to be made. I know Dr. Block has made the double proportionality case, but consider it improper to assume his co-authors agree by association, as this particular point was not raised in the chapter. ぀たり、倫理的な犁止が郚分準備銀行制床を垂堎から远い出すず䞻匵する前に、たた補助の䞻匵が必芁でござる。ブロック博士が二重比䟋の論理を䞻匵したこずがあるが、圌の同胞が連想で䞀臎するず決め蟌んではならない。この章ではその論理が提起されおいない。
That concludes the ethical topics in Chapter 7 of The Economics and Ethics of Private Property. The economics sub-chapter sticks to economics, and the conclusion does not introduce new arguments. In conclusion, I believe fractional reserve banking should allowed under the libertarian ethic. これで『私有財産の経枈孊ず理論孊』の第䞃章の倫理話題が終了でござる。経枈孊節が経枈孊の範囲から逞れない、そしお結論には新しい論理が出ない。拙者の結論は、完党自由䞻矩では郚分準備銀行制床が蚱されるべきでござる。
No comments

The Spectrum of Ethics

  By
Back in my review of Chapter 8 of The Ethics Of Liberty, I brought up the point that individualism and socialism are two absolutes, and there exists a spectrum between them that examples of social organization might occupy. Any given social organization might be one absolute or the other, or it might occupy a point between the two. Can this be justified from an ethical perspective? Yes, taking either absolute as a starting point. Can starting somewhere other than an absolute be justified? No, it cannot. 自由の倫理の第八章の埩習で、拙者が個人䞻矩ず瀟䌚䞻矩の極点の間に瀟䌚制床の䟋があちこちあるず曞いた。そのあらゆる制床が䞀方の極点か、他方の極点か、その䞭のどこかの䜍眮をにある。倫理的に正圓化できるかどちらの極点を原点にしおから、そうできる。極点でない原点を正圓化できるかいな、それはできない。
Starting from individualism, if every individual agrees to abide by a pure socialism, then that socialism is just, because every individual consents to it. Starting from socialism, if Society decides to enact a pure individualism, then that individualism is just, because it is Society’s will that it be enacted. The likelihood of these outcomes may be small, but they are possible, so deserving of mention in an ethical theory. 個人䞻矩の原点から、個人党人が瀟䌚制床に承知すれば、個人党人が賛成したからその瀟䌚制床が正圓でござる。瀟䌚䞻矩の原点から、「瀟䌚」が玔粋な個人制床を建぀ず決めたら、瀟䌚の意思であるこずでその個人制床が正圓でござる。その結果の確立が䜎くおも、可胜だから倫理の論では認めざるを埗ない。
However, the ethical theory cannot start from any other position coherently. It would be an oversimplification to say, “The ethic should start at the midpoint, a 50-50 split,” even leaving aside the point that you need to first justify that proportion, as contrasted with any other proportion. That could mean any number of things: one gender is individualist, where the other is socialist; one hemisphere is individualist, where the other is socialist; 50% of all resources produced are individually owned, the remainder are socially owned; and so on. If everything once allocated to individual or social control remained so allocated forever, what happens if, over time, one side maintains and increases its resources, while the other squanders and depletes its resources? だが、理路敎然ず別の極点に倫理の論が基づけない。「䞭倮の点、どちら五分五分から倫理が始たるべきだ」ず蚀うのはその割合の正圓化の必芁を眮いおも過床に単玔化でござる。いく぀かの意味になる「䞀方の性が個人䞻矩化、他方の性が瀟䌚䞻矩化」、「䞀方の半球が個人䞻矩化、他方の半球が瀟䌚䞻矩化」、「生産されたものの党おの半分が個人䞻矩的に制した、その残りが瀟䌚䞻矩的に制した」、ずか。あるものが個人䞻矩化にされたか、瀟䌚䞻矩化にされたか、氞久にそう続けたら、時間がた぀ず䞀方が資源を維持しお増加するの他方に資源を浪費しお枯枇すれば、どうなる
Finding a starting point, by itself, would be an incredibly complex endeavor. The starting point, itself, would be an incredibly complex point. And any number of ethicists who independently attempted to choose a starting point could hardly expect to land upon the same one. Indeed, even if a great number so attempted it, mostly likely none of the starting points would comport with any other. Even if they could be coherently analyzed (which may not be possible) and a number of factors found to be common (which may not hold true), taking those together as a starting point is no basis for any philosophy, because philosophies are disciplines that seeks truth through reasoning, not through empirical survey, not even a survey of philosophers’ ideas. 原点を芋぀けるこず自䜓がすごく耇雑なこずになる。原点自䜓もすごく耇雑な点になる。幟人ものの倫理者が独立的に原点を遞がうずすれば同じ点に着くなんお期埅できない。いかにも、倧数の遞びになっおも同じ点の二䟋が珟れないのを予期できる。分析できおも䞍可胜かも知らない、いく぀かの共通点があっおもないかも知らない、合䜓しお原点を決めるのは哲孊の矛盟になる。哲孊は理性で真実を求める孊問でござる。哲孊者の意芋でも実蚌的のものは哲孊に関係しない。
For this reason, attempting to start at any point but pure individualism or pure socialism is an invalid philosophical choice. この理由で、玔粋な個人䞻矩たたは玔粋な瀟䌚䞻矩から始たらない倫理は哲孊的に根拠のない倫理でござる。
No comments

Individualist Ethics versus Socialist Ethics

  By
Having described both individualist ethics and socialist ethics, with the men involved being considered equals in each case, let’s consider how to choose between them. The decision will necessarily come down to the virtues of the two ethics, and the consequences of the two ethics. So let’s examine those. 個人䞻矩ず瀟䌚䞻矩の䞡方、匹敵する人の倫理を曞き衚したこずからどう遞ぶかを考えよう。結局、その遞択が倫理の埳ず結果のこずになる。
The defining trait that separates these ethics is the locus of autonomy. One can choose to implement a centralized or a decentralized authority structure. この倫理の区別する特城が自䞻暩の䜍眮でござる。䞀方は䞭倮集暩で、他方は地方分暩でござる。
Under individualism, every individual possesses autonomy. So, under individualism, the core virtue is respect for the intrinsic value of every man’s autonomy. Important religious traditions, especially those of Western Civilization, go so far as to say that every man’s worth is sacred. 個人䞻矩で各人が個人的に自䞻暩を持぀。だから個人䞻矩の心の埳が「各人の自䞻暩ぞの尊敬」でござる。倧事な信教の、特に西教の䌝統が各人の䟡倀に神聖芖する。
Under socialism, only the social group itself possesses autonomy. So, the core virtue is respect for the interests of society-at-large. No individual gets to selfishly hold everybody else back, as it were, so society can progress optimally, without hindrance. 瀟䌚䞻矩で瀟䌚の集団だけが自䞻暩を持぀。だから瀟䌚䞻矩の心の埳が「瀟䌚党䌚の暩益ぞの尊敬」でござる。䞀人でも私欲の個人が党䌚を劚げず、瀟䌚が支障なく至適的に信仰できる。
The socialist might assert that the individualist ethic allows for wealthy and powerful men to subvert social goals for their own interests. If you ask him what these “social goals” are, however, all he can do is offer is his opinion. It might be his opinion of what they would be, or perhaps his opinion of how society might form those goals, or, if he is particularly honest, his opinion that, whatever the goals would turn out to be, they would be good. 個人䞻矩の倫理では富匷な人が自分の暩益の為に瀟䌚目的を芆せる、ず瀟䌚䞻矩者が䞻匵するかも。その「瀟䌚目的」は䜕なのかず聞くず、自分の意芋しか出せない。䜕になるはずの意芋か、瀟䌚が目的を䜓系着ける方法の意芋か、それずも正盎な人ならばどんな目的になるずしおも善良なこずになる意芋か。
The individualist counter-asserts that the socialist ethic allows for the “society” to trample upon the people that comprise it. This accusation is entirely accurate. Society has all authority, and the people therein have none. If Society even decides to purge a subset of its population, it need not consider their interests any more than a man needs to consult with his appendix when he is considering an appendectomy. Society makes the decisions for its own purposes, not to make its people happy. 個人䞻矩者も、瀟䌚䞻矩の倫理では「瀟䌚」が自身を構成する人たちを蹂躙されるず䞻匵する。その非難が完党に正確でござる。瀟䌚が党おの暩力を持っお、瀟䌚の民には䜕の暩力も持たない。瀟䌚が䞀郚の民を粛枅するず決めおも、盲腞炎手術を考える人が盲腞ず盞談する必芁がないように、その䞀郚の民に心配する必芁がない。瀟䌚が民の喜びの為じゃなく、瀟䌚自身の為に遞択する。
That’s a discussion of the relative virtues of individualism and socialism. Now to consider their consequences. Individualism can point to its results; the historical record is clear that it produces enormous wealth and prosperity- a seemingly endless improvement in quality of life for those who organize themselves by its precepts. Socialism, however, has to posit theoretical benefits, and furthermore, theoretical benefits that are better than individualism’s manifest accomplishments. 個人䞻矩ず瀟䌚䞻矩の埳はそうず、䞡方の結果を考えよう。個人䞻矩の結果は良いでござる。歎史の蚌が明らかにすごい富ず繁栄をもたらす蚌拠になる。個人䞻矩の教蚓を埓う人たちが芋える限り底知れない生掻進化を起きる。察しお、瀟䌚䞻矩には理論的な利益、しかも個人䞻矩の結果を超越する理論的な利益、を立぀必芁がある。
Perhaps they could say that Society, in pursuit of its own health, will keep its constituent people healthy. Perhaps they could say that Society, having a perspective entirely different from the individuals’, would see threats to itself (and, by extension, to its people) that they would not, and could take appropriate action to preserve them. 瀟䌚が自分の健康の為に民の健康を芋守るずか、個人の芖点ず違う瀟䌚の芖点から自分ず民ぞの危険が芋えお効率な行動が取れるずか。
This relies on a naive faith in Society, however. That describes a healthy Society. But, if a healthy and conscientious Society is possible, an unhealthy and dysfunctional Society is possible as well. Erect a global Socialism blindly, and which will you get? だが、それが䞖間知れずな瀟䌚ぞの信仰に頌る。その瀟䌚が健康的でござるが、健康良く良心的な瀟䌚が可胜ならば、健康悪く機胜䞍党な瀟䌚も可胜でござる。闇雲に「瀟䌚」を建おば、どっちになる
Prudence might suggest that loading the world’s population into an experimental vehicle, with all their lives and belongings at risk, would be a very bad idea until such a vehicle had proven reliably safe and effective at smaller scales. Yet, as far as potential consequences go, this is analogous to any demand for the socialist ethic at this time. A healthy Socialism that doesn’t break down in under a century, doesn’t have genocidal oppression as a prominent feature, and makes its people happy would be a good proof of concept. 䞖界の人たち党員の呜ず所有物を賭けお実隓的な乗り物に乗せる前に、小芏暡でそのような乗り物の安党を蚌拠するべき。これが思慮でござる。だが、結果に぀いお今瀟䌚䞻矩を求めるのは類掚的でござる。癟幎以内に厩壊しない、倧虐殺な迫害に頌らない、自分の民を喜ばす健康的な瀟䌚が出来れば実蚌実隓になる。
Economic theory and economic history are clear in their conclusion regarding the consequences of individualism and economic socialism (that is, government control of all capital goods). Individualism can produce wealth for its people. Socialism, by contrast, can only consume wealth. The socialist theory that society-wide coordination of the economy can eliminate redundant or conflicting economic activities and thereby increase production is profoundly wrong. Ludwig von Mises in particular proved that a socialist economic system cannot make rational decisions. What the socialist sees as redundancy and conflict are vitally important for generating economic signals, which the people of the society need in order to know what they should do. Without them, the individuals are lost, and consequently society as a whole is lost as well. 経枈孊の理論ず経枈歎史が個人䞻矩ず瀟䌚䞻矩の経枈的な結果に同意する。個人䞻矩が人に富をもたらせる。違っお、瀟䌚䞻矩が富を費やせるしか出来ない。瀟䌚䞻矩の党瀟䌚で経枈を匷調するず冗長ず衝突を陀去するずの理論が重芁に間違っおいる。前䞖玀の経枈孊者、特にルヌトノィヒ・フォン・ミヌれス、は瀟䌚䞻矩が合理的な決断に至れないこずを蚌明した。瀟䌚䞻矩者がず冗長ず衝突ず芋えるものが経枈的な兆候を䜜成するために必須なものでござる。その兆候こそが瀟䌚の人々には絶察必芁でござる。その兆候がないず、各々の個人が道に迷っお、瀟䌚党䜓も道に迷う。
No comments

Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics

  By
Hans-Hermann Hoppe writes from time to time on the time on his basis of the libertarian ethic, which he calls argumentation ethics. As he describes it, in order to justify something, you must justify it in argument. Therefore, certain presuppositions necessary to argumentation must hold, lest the whole theory collapse from a defective foundation. Here I will quote from The Economics and Ethics of Private Property, pp. 341-342: ハンスヘルマンホッペ　が時々自分の議論倫理ず蚀う自由の倫理に぀いお曞く。正圓化するこずなら議論で正圓化するこずだず蚘述する。だから議論の予断が持たないず、論理が根拠の残欠で厩壊する。「私有財産の経枈孊ず倫理孊」のに曞く
The question of what is just or unjust … only arises insofar as I am, and others are, capable of propositional exchanges. … [I]f this is so, … then any ethical proposal … must be assumed to claim that it is capable of being validated by propositional or argumentative means. … [I]t must be considered the ultimate defeat for an ethical proposal if one can demonstrate that its content is logically incompatible with the proponent’s claim that its validity be ascertainable by argumentative means. …
䜕が正矩か䞍正矩かの質問が 私たち人間は提案的な亀換するこずが出来るほどだけ珟れる。 なら、あらゆる論理の提案が提案的な、議論的な方法で正圓性を蚌明できるず䞻匵するこずになる。 倫理の提案の究極の敗北がその内容が議論的な方法で正圓化する䞻匵ず矛盟するこず、ず考えるべきです。 
[T]he means which a person demonstrates as preferring by engaging in propositional exchanges are those of private property. … [A]nyone who tried to justify any norm whatsoever would already have to presuppose the exclusive right of control over his body as a valid norm simply in order to say, “I propose such and such.” …
提案的な亀換をする人の瀺した手段が私有財産の手段です。 どんな兞型を提案する人が「これを提案する」ず蚀うために自分の身䜓を排他的に制埡するこずを予断する。
Furthermore, it would be equally impossible to sustain argumentation … if one were not allowed to appropriate in addition to one’s body other scarce means through homesteading action.
もう䞀぀、人が身䜓ず加わっお別の䞍足な手段をホヌムステッドで充圓するこずが蚱されないなら 議論を維持も䞍可胜になる。
Let’s grant that arguments that contradict the tenets of argumentation are invalid. Hoppe, however, begs the question when asserting that that means an absolute system of private property. A couple of men could have a full-fledged argument under complete socialism. The society sets aside time and space for the debate, and grants to the two the privilege of free expression for it. Since, under socialism, society has absolute authority, it certainly has the authority to arrange this. 議論の原理ず矛盟する議論が根拠なしず認めよう。だが、それから絶察的な私有財産の制床になる䞻匵で、ホッペが埪環論法する。完党な瀟䌚䞻矩の䞋でも人が本栌的な議論ができる。瀟䌚が議論の為に時間ず空間を配眮し、数人に衚珟の特暩を蚱す。瀟䌚䞻矩では瀟䌚には絶察な暩力を持぀んだから、そうする暩力を必ず持぀。
Can you object that what occurs is not an argument? Then that objection must carry, to some extent, to all arguments that occur outside of a pure private property society. Yet, it is still possible that the socialist debate may strike on something that is justified. Is the conclusion invalidated by the circumstances under which the debate occurred? その出来事が議論じゃないず講矩できるならば、その講矩が倧なり小なり玔朔な私有財産の瀟䌚の倖に起こる議論にも繰り䞊げるはずでござる。でも、瀟䌚䞻矩の議論でも正圓なこずに圓たるかも知らない。起こる環境で議論の結論が無効になるか
It is not; a true proposition is true (or just, in the context of ethics) without any respect to the circumstances surrounding its discovery. 吊。正しい提案倫理孊では正圓な提案が発芋の環境には関係なく正しいでござる。
One can just as easily claim that all debates presuppose socialism as individualism. Simply: Society, the locus of all authority under socialism, always exists where two or more people interact. Even two seemingly atomistic “individualists” who engage in a debate are actually forming a society by their own actions, and therefore the debate occurs with Society’s blessing. A larger society, with more socialized members, could do much better, of course; just ask any socialist. 議論の予断が「個人䞻矩」みたいに「瀟䌚䞻矩」に簡単に基づくず䞻匵できる。ほれ、瀟䌚䞻矩で党暩力を持぀瀟䌚が人の盞互䜜甚で垞に存圚する。「個人䞻矩者」ず名乗る二人でも、議論を始めるこずで自分の行動で瀟䌚に䜓系付けるこずで、瀟䌚の暩力の䞋で議論する。圓然、もっず倧きい、もっず瀟䌚化した人を持った瀟䌚ならもっずよくできる、瀟䌚䞻矩者の意芋では。
What I really find outright silly about Hoppe’s theory is that, if I’m right, it presupposes things that are perfectly sufficient to prove private property, without all that circumlocution, but fails to recognize it. Right from the start, it is never questioned that, in one of these debates, both participants possess equal rights. Historically, it’s a common argument: “I don’t need to listen to your objections, you are by nature subordinate to me.” Give both sides equal rights, and acknowledge the individual’s intrinsic worth, and the social order of private property is the conclusion. 拙者が可笑しいに思うホッペの理論の点が、拙者が正しければ、私有財産を婉曲法なし正圓化する予断もあるが、ホッペ自身が気付かない。最初から、議論では「䞡瀟が匹敵な暩利を持぀」こずを疑わない。歎史䞊、「私がおたえの異論に聞く必芁はない。貎賎の性質で、おたえが埮賎だ。」ず蚀うのががありふれた議論でござる。䞡方に匹敵な暩利を䞊げ、個人の内圚的な䟡倀を認めるこずだけで、私有財産の瀟䌚制床が結論になる。
No comments

Individualism in Ethics

  By
Individualism in ethics asserts that every individual man gets a certain sphere of autonomy, within which he can do what he pleases. Every man’s sphere is different, but they are still ethically equal, because, if the ethic is formulated properly, the spheres are constructed under rules that treat them equally. 倫理では個人䞻矩が人々に勝手に自埋する領域をあたる䞻匵でござる。倫理が正確に考案されたら、領域が個々に違えど行動者ずしお無差別な法埋で補䜜された領域だから各人が匹敵する。
Unlike socialism, which we might describe as an end point that we don’t know the path to, individualism is more of a beginning point that we chart a path from. Every man has a will of his own, and the right to exercise that will – but the ethic needs to prevent conflict between rights. Rights cannot conflict. One man’s right to control a resource – say, an apple – precludes everybody else from controlling that apple. If another man also had the right to control it, then a conflict in control rights occurs if the two don’t agree on how to use it. What is the right allocation? 終着点ぞのたどり道を知らない䞻匵である瀟䌚䞻矩ず違っお、個人䞻矩が分かった始点からの道を䜜る䞻匵でござる。各人には自分の意思があるこずず、その意思を行䜿する暩利を持぀。だが、倫理の理論が察立を防がなきゃならない。暩利ず暩利の察立がありえない。人が資源を制床する暩利を持぀なら、その暩利がその人以倖の人々に制床する暩利を吊定する。他者にもその暩利があったら、䜿甚に同意がないず暩利ず暩利の矛盟になる。どっちが正しいか、誰も刀断できない。
I say this frequently, but the purpose of ethics is to differentiate between right and wrong action. Where an ethic fails to make that differentiation, it fails as an ethic. A conflict of “rights” within an ethic is therefore a sign of a failing ethic, at least so far as the scope of that conflict extends. 拙者がよく蚀うが、倫理孊の目的が正しい行動ず正しくない行動を区別するこずでござる。その区別のできない倫理は倫理ずしおの倱栌でござる。故に倫理での「正しいこずの矛盟」は矛盟の呚囲では倫理の倱敗の印でござる。
So the question to begin with is, how can we derive rights to control things, i.e., property rights, in such a way that those rights never conflict? 問題は、どうやっお䟋倖なく矛盟しない䞖界のものを制埡する暩利、いわゆる所有暩、を䜜り出す
Basically, the solution to this is to start property rights for each man centered on himself, acknowledging their right to expand those property rights outward (through the ethical framework of homesteading) until they reach another’s property, at which his right to expand stops. In this way, everything starts out unowned, but can become owned, and through every step of the process, there is no conflict of rights. 基本的に、問題の解決は各人の暩利を個人自身から生み出し、ホヌムステッドの理論で䞖界に広げる暩利を認めお、拡倧化を止める他人の所有たで。これで、䞖界の党おが無䞻で始めるが、所有になれる。その通り、最初の䞀歩から党䞖界の所有化たで暩利の矛盟がない。