ON THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN NIETZSCHE AND DOOLITTLE (ongoing attempt to reconcile

ON THE SIMILARITY BETWEEN NIETZSCHE AND DOOLITTLE

(ongoing attempt to reconcile Nietzsche and propertarianism for those who misunderstand my work)

—“As he views things from the perspective of life, Nietzsche further denies that there is a universal morality applicable indiscriminately to all human beings, and instead designates a series of moralities in an order of rank that ascends from the plebeian to the noble: some moralities are more suitable for subordinate roles; some are more appropriate for dominating and leading social roles. What counts as a preferable and legitimate action depends upon the kind of person one is. The deciding factor is whether one is weaker, sicker and on the decline, or whether one is healthier, more powerful and overflowing with life.”—

This position is completely compatible with Propertarianism. Nietzsche, as a proper german, as a proper ‘spiritualist’, and a proper lutheran, knows little to nothing of economics, or biology, or law. He is a romantic and inspirational literary figure, not a scientist, and writes as a romantic and inspirational literary figure. He correctly warns us of the false moral future: neo-puritainism and the socialism of the masses. But he gives us no solution – because the only solution is in constructing institutions.

So for Nietzsche, Morality is ‘right action’. And right action differs based upon one’s class. For propertarianism, morality is the prohibition on actions that inhibit cooperation, and personally beneficial action differs based upon one’s reproductive strategy (class).

Those who are at the bottom need incentive to maintain the voluntary organization of production and so we must pay them off and require one child only, in exchange for their cooperation. And they must not privatize the commons that we create in order to compete and demonstrate our superiority.

There is no conflict between his arguments and mine, other than as a continental he engages in conflation (deceit) and because he a victim of his time (prior to his loss of sanity), he knows little to nothing of science and economics.

As always, I make scientific arguments. I use operations rather than analogy. So I do not make literary arguments. They are weak arguments by the intellectually unskilled and scientifically ignorant. And when those are the only technologies available, they are excusable technologies. But we have knowledge and technology available to state our arguments truthfully (in the testimonial sense) and we have the knowledge to state causal relations.

Religions seek to inspire. Law seeks to constrain. Religion is a cheap dishonest substitute for law used to deceive ignorant people into adherence to rules of cooperation. Law (in the common + natural law sense) is an expensive institution that must be imposed upon people.

One can create an objectively moral religion (stoicism), or one can create an objectively immoral religion (the three monotheisms). One can create objectively moral law (natural and common law), or one can create objectively immoral law (chinese, soviet, and most others). One teaches religion positively (through indoctrination and education), and one imposes law negatively (through dispute resolution).

Both are impositions. The question is whether we impose objectively moral constraints upon man (non-parasitism and truthfulness) using truthful means or we impose objectively immoral constraints upon man (untruthful and parasitic) using untruthful means.

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine