ON MORALITY (THE FINAL WORD?) GIVEN 1) The Set of all objective prohibitions on

ON MORALITY (THE FINAL WORD?)

GIVEN

1) The Set of all objective prohibitions on involuntary-transfer/free-riding/imposed-costs in the spectrum criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial.

2) The Set of all normative rules that impose costs on participants for some normatively strategic purpose, enforced by inclusion or exclusion.

3) The Set of formal laws intended to capture all of the above, and enforce by violence.

4) The Set of all subjective categorical applications of those rules to concrete circumstances, not yet determinable as 1, 2, or 3.

ASSERTIONS

a) 1 is Universally true, since cooperation is irrational in the presence of parasitism.

b) 2 is NOT universally true since under no universal set of norms are all groups equally competitive. Therefore it is advantageous for higher groups (with better abilities, norms, and institutions) to operate in libertarian ethics, and lower groups (those with worse abilities, norms and institutions) to operate under social democratic, or even despotic conditions.

c) 3 is not universally true because law is a pragmatic organic adoption to the necessary condition of set 1, and the strategic condition of set 2.

d) 4 is not universally true because because it is hypothetical experimentation not yet codified as law, norm, or necessity.

EXPLANATION

Different groups develop different evolutionary strategies that require treatment of in-group and out-group members differently. Under the Absolute nuclear family and the nuclear family the distinction between out-group and in-group members has been eradicated due to outbreeding. Communism and socialism likewise are attempts to destroy the family in an attempt to mitigate reproductive differences between Tribes, classes and families. As such this is a ‘white people’ problem since only northern european white people have abandoned the family and tribe and the rest of the world has not.

In polities with Traditional and STEM families, there exists high demand for the state because in-group and out-group members are treated very differently. In a northern european aristocratic polity, in-group and out-group members are not treated differently – because there are no out-group members. However, external polties entering into the northern european polity demonstrate in-group vs out-group ethics and morality. This means that universalism or better stated, monopoly ethics, or perhaps ‘totalitarian ethics’, are in fact competitively disadvantageous against those who practice out-group ethics.

The more ‘insurance’ provided by the state the more disadvantaged is universalism and libertarianism. Because not only are universalists paying into the commons with late child birth, working parents, and the nuclear and absolute family costs, but competitors do not practice these same constraints, and rates of birth and place multiplicative burden on the commons generated by those who contribute to it.

So the northern european strategic advantage brought about by manorialism and the church’s prohibition on inbreeding reduces population growth rates, eliminates even in-family free riding, all in an effort to add capital to the commons, and to suppress underclass rates of reproduction. Meanwhile those that do not practice such abstinence are able to consume the commons thus saved.

We can analyze each group’s reproductive(family structure), social (trust radius), and productive (economic) strategies but in the end, this is what is codified in our laws and norms. As such norms are morals unique to a given reproductive strategy for a given people, in competition with other peoples.

Moral universalism is true in matters of dispute resolution – voluntary exchange is the only rational means of dispute resolution. Moral particularism is true in the case of fulfilling a reproductive strategy. But no moral strategy can be universal since that would deterministically eliminate some groups from participation. ergo -libertarianism is an aristocratic philosophy for a creative class, and other classes require other strategies. In the context of moral utility then these strategies are each moral within group and not across group. For cross group morality we only require property rights. However, since any and all collections of property rights whether objective and necessary or normative and strategic, require institutional support, we require different political orders to satisfy the reproductive strategies of each while cooperating via market means (voluntary exchange) at both the consumer, producer and political levels.

Monopoly is tyranny.

There is no optimum.

Any optimum would produce deterministic ends.

And that would mean some people would have to prefer losing the genetic competition.

And that will never happen. Never has happened. Never can happen.

Universalism is non-logical. Libertarian or otherwise.

Instead, libertarianism forms the legal basis of the negotiation of conflicts between groups with heterogeneous wants and needs.

As far as I know, albeit in brief form, this is the last word on morality, its scope and the argument for universalism.

Curt Doolittle

The Philosophy of Aristocracy

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev Ukraine