Author: Curt Doolittle

IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE BIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES INTO ACCOUNT?

(worth repeating) ( h/t: Kyle Trotta )

1) Is Propertarianism Utilitarian?

First, Propertarianism consists of multiple concepts:

(a) Testimonial Truth.

(b) Testimonialism: The unification of morality, philosophy, law and science under testimonial truth.

(c) Propertarian Ethics and Politics: a universal language of ethics and politics.

(d) Testimonial Classical Liberalism: the means of constructing institutions that produce commons – (because truth and consequential trust, is the reason westerners can produce such hyper-competitive commons.)

(e) Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Western Aristocratic Group Evolutionary Strategy)

We (meaning the people who advise me) felt that lumping everything under the single term ‘Propertarianism’ was simply easier to understand one name, than five or six. So when we say ‘propertarianism’ in the narrowest sense, its the formal logic of ethics and politics. When we use it casually, in the broader sense, we refer to the use of that formal logic to create aristocratic egalitarian political orders.

Now, back to “Utilitarian”. When we say something is utilitarian, we mean that the decidability of moral questions is determined by the usefulness of some outcome or other, by some criteria or other.

In Propertarianism, I’ve tried to provide an AMORAL (non-moral), logically and operationally articulated, empirically derived, means of deciding moral questions: the prohibition on the imposition of costs – a prohibition that MUST exist for cooperation to remain rational.

To state this prohibition in positive terms we can say we require: “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality of the same criteria.”

We can further express this requirement in law, as both the logical origin of all law, and the formal expression of that law as property rights where the scope of property is defined as property-en-toto; where property-en-toto is defined as accumulated capital of all forms that people will demonstrably defend and retaliate against impositions upon (enumerated on propertarianism.com), and where that capital was obtained by the same criteria.

Propertarianism then, is the legal codification of the single necessary principle of rational cooperation. With it we can create nomocracy: Rule of Law, under the one law of rational cooperation. And it applies whether we resolve interpersonal disputes, or organize to construct commons.

Propertarianism is expressible as the incremental, evolutionary suppression of parasitism (free riding) in all its forms, by the most immediate means possible: the organic, evolutionary, independent, rule of law, under the one principle (law) of anti-parasitism: the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against property-en-toto. Leaving no means of sustenance available except productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

2) Does Propertarianism take biological influences into account?

The answer is yes. Both in ethics and in politics.

One of the aspects I have tried to get across is that just as the market forms an information system that by way of prices provides us with information needed to serve ourselves by the service of others – to cooperate at vast scales – that our moral biases, and moral blindnesses, and rational justifications constitute a division of inter-temporal reproductive perception, cognition, negotiation, and labor.

As such, voluntary exchange between, not only males and females, but voluntary exchange between progressives(feminine bias), libertarians(production bias), and conservatives(masculine tribal bias) are the only means by which to make full use of the information perceived by all.

Each inter-temporal and moral specialization must specialize to gain expertise, but must also compromise with other parts of the spectrum to obtain what their bias suggests to them.

As such the market for commons must be divided as were the original houses into classes, and classes into genders, to reflect the biases of the groups. This is not to say we need representative government. It is only that no matter what means we use to make decisions on the provision of commons, whether direct, representative or economic, that monopoly decision making (majority rule) is not required, only the non-imposition of costs by the participants in the agreement and those who do not wish to participate in it.

To facilitate negotiation it appears that criteria for joining one house or another is extremely useful. Although I suggest this be a virtual house, not a physical one. We are no longer limited by space and time in our communications.

I hope this helped

Curt Doolittle

The Propertarian Institute

Kiev, Ukraine