Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 09:30:00 UTC
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
OBSERVATIONS: MUSIC VIDEOS Irina Allegrova & Slava – “First Love Last Love”. (Ир
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XBwJU3Nnu8CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS: MUSIC VIDEOS
Irina Allegrova & Slava – “First Love Last Love”.
(Ирина Аллегрова & Слава – Первая Любовь – Любовь Последн)
This video has been on the local equivalent of MTV for, I dont know how long – as long as I remember – and they play it about every 90 minutes.
I can’t quite put my arm around why it’s not something that we’d see in the states. But it makes a lot of ‘sense’ here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XBwJU3Nnu8
(LYRICS)
Жизнь в лицо кидалась грязью, я, запутанная связью,
Перед Богом страх уже не сдерживала,
Ангел не ругал, но не поддерживал. Ангел не ругал…
Зря удерживать не стала, гордость женская взыграла,
Отпустила, и разлука в дом вошла.
Ты – моя любовь последняя была. Ты – моя любовь!
Хочешь, пойми… Сможешь, прости…
Припев:
Первая любовь – любовь последняя.
Нежная и пошлая, а теперь – лишь прошлое.
Только от неё мне не найти спасения,
Как небес пророчество, гордость и терпение,
Пропасть в одиночество, совпадение…
Кто сказал, что время лечит, но день ото дня не легче…
Протекает жизнь дождями горьких слез! Горьких слёз!
Первую любовь не приняла всерьез… Первую любовь…
Хочешь, пойми… Сможешь, прости…
Припев:
Первая любовь – любовь последняя.
Нежная и пошлая, а теперь – лишь прошлое.
Только от неё мне не найти спасения,
Как небес пророчество, гордость и терпение,
Пропасть в одиночество, совпадение…
Первая любовь – любовь последняя.
Нежная и пошлая, а теперь – лишь прошлое.
Только от неё мне не найти спасения,
Как небес пророчество, гордость и терпение,
Пропасть в одиночество, совпадение…
Кто сказал, что время лечит…
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 08:46:00 UTC
-
YES, LAW=MORALITY IF ALL ETHICS ARE REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS (important piec
YES, LAW=MORALITY IF ALL ETHICS ARE REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS
(important piece)
There is no distinction between legal and moral (criminal, ethical, moral) content in disputes. This fallacy is a central problem of the logic of libertarian property theory.
The first question is whether we compensate people for defense of property rights (criminal ethical and moral) or expect them to pay those costs even if they cannot participate in production (which I argue is immoral.)
I argue that this is a mere matter of compensating people via commission on overall production for their action in defense of the means of production (a low transaction cost society where voluntary organization of production is possible). And that people who participate in production and who choose to be involved in production should capture their wealth.
Our error is in not acknowledging the costs of respecting property rights. Which are very high. And that is why respect for property rights, especially high trust property rights of the protestant northern europeans, is so rare. It’s terribly expensive, even if dramatically more productive.
Like all fundamental philosophical questions (of which I only know half of a dozen that exist), the central question is either you have a right to reproduce if you cannot support your offspring. Is that immoral and therefore illegal? That question determines whether your arguments are simple and rational or complex and non-rational (incalculable).
This division of labor and compensation does not require nonsense-bullshit moralizing from continental and cosmopolitan schools of thought (ie:deception, obscurantism, authoritarianism, and loading, framing,) to load and frame the argument. It is merely respect for individual property rights through and through.
Low property rights with low ethical and moral standards will produce high demand for the state, while high property rights with high ethical and moral standards will produce low demand for the state.
As such, for any libertarian order, the relationship between law and morality is one-to-one. There is no difference.
However, it is a practical necessity to pay those who cannot engage in production but who can engage in creating the social, legal and economic means of production, for their efforts. And failing to do so is criminal as well as immoral.
This approach gives everyone in the society (local polity that facilitates the voluntary organization of production) the same interests: suppression of the predatory state monopoly, while at the same time maintaining parity between law and morality.
There is no need for emotional loading and framing if you actually do a bit of thinking. But libertarians are often lighter on the discipline of thinking than they let on.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 05:58:00 UTC
-
PROHIBITING OBSCURANT SPEECH WITH E-PRIME (E’) DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been;
PROHIBITING OBSCURANT SPEECH WITH E-PRIME (E’)
DISALLOWED WORDS
be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t;
Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be:
I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s;
Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following:
ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your).
ALLOWED WORDS
The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs).
become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal.
PROPERTARIANISM
In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 15:31:00 UTC
-
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION AND NON PRODUCTIVE INTERACTION (ed
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION AND NON PRODUCTIVE INTERACTION
(edited and reposted)
PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS
Let me ‘get all Propertarian’ here. Define properties, axis, actions, Property, and costs.
BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TABLE:
Ternary : Neutral(Null), Benefit (True), Harm False)
RESULTS (In Descending Order)
1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT
2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN
3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF
4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF
5) (?): both are harmed : FF
OPPORTUNITY COSTS vs FIXED PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION
The biological model above does not account for opportunity costs from production, where production in a division of labor. We must correct the difference between organisms that engage in production and those that do not.
An opportunity cost is the DIFFERENCE between one choice and another. In other words, only mutually productive exchanges are free of loss. ie: there is only one T position in the truth table. Unlike non-producing organisms. Biology is a poor analogy, because production is nearly unique to man.
Lets see if I can simplify this even more without losing the central idea.
EXAMPLE
A and B engage in a mutually productive exchange.
Neither A nor B at this moment have a more productive exchange to engage in.
This is the maximum yield any action can produce, at zero opportunity cost.
Every action OTHER than this one decreases the benefit and increases the opportunity cost from zero.
CORRECTED TRUTH TABLE
P= Production , ~P = Lost opportunity for production, H=harm
1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT => P1 + P2 = TRUE
2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN=> P1 + ~P2 = FALSE
3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF=> P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE
4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF=>~P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE
5) (?): both are harmed : FF => ~P1 + H1 + ~P2 + H1 = FALSE
EXCEPTION: MODIFIED BY KIN SELECTION
Genetic Distance: |<-Self, Offspring, Kin, Associates, Neutrals, Competitors, Enemies->|
Humans demonstrate kin selection; treatment of self, near genes and farther genes as priorities with marginal indifference applied to offspring.
INSTINCTS
a) desire for cooperation (to reduce costs by increasing productivity)
b) prohibition on free riding (cheating as defense against parasitism)
CONCLUSION
Humans engage in cooperation, eschew free riding, and in any act of cooperation, opportunity costs guarantee that all non-productive exchanges (aside from kin selection) are net losses.
This is different from biological organisms who do not have the ability to cooperate on production by choosing between opportunity costs.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 10:15:00 UTC
-
SMART –“Most opinions we find stupid or insane are usually just the result of t
SMART
–“Most opinions we find stupid or insane are usually just the result of the opinion-holder discounting the value of a cost we find to be expensive. I need to remember this before I start hating on people for their stupid, insane beliefs.”–
Stephanie McPeak Herman
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 10:00:00 UTC
-
FROM FREE RIDING TO RENT SEEKING TO ANARCHY People form governments to suppress
FROM FREE RIDING TO RENT SEEKING TO ANARCHY
People form governments to suppress the high transaction costs of criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. The consequence is that all that suppressed free riding is simply converted into rent seeking by the bureaucracy. By forming governments, we trade high transaction costs that are pervasive (rampant criminal, unethical and immoral behavior) for low transaction costs that are increasingly expensive (conspiratorial, corrupt and exploitative behavior).
The question we face in advancing political theory, is how to prevent rent seeking as well as free riding.
The answer is to allow insurance companies, the common law, the courts, and a fully articulated set of property rights to do their jobs for us.
Yes, there are certain luxuries we may wish to produce as a commons. There is no reason that we cannot produce luxuries as a commons.
But we cannot produce laws. We can only allow the courts to discover them.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 08:03:00 UTC
-
LIBERTARIANS HAVE A LOT GOING FOR US My criticisms of Mises, Austrianism and Rot
LIBERTARIANS HAVE A LOT GOING FOR US
My criticisms of Mises, Austrianism and Rothbard are fairly technical – and they are rock solid.
But we have a lot going for us: The business cycle; objective morality as voluntary, productive, fully informed, exchange free of externalities; the reduction of all rights to property rights adjudicable under common law; hoppeian institutions as replacements for monopoly bureaucracy; and the possibility of a formal logic and grammar of cooperation – are all rock solid concepts.
But our ‘antique’ justifications are not rock solid. Actually, they’re embarrassingly bad and we are philosophical and scientific laughing stocks because of them. And that condition prevents us from arguing in favor of our material solutions to political economy and monopoly bureaucracy.
In order to defend against postmodernism, socialism, and dishonest socialism, marxism, pseudoscience, and mysticism, I must correct our reasoning as well. Most of which is childishly pseudoscientific.
I can fix that. And that’s what I’m doing. 🙂
_______
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 07:56:00 UTC
-
PERSONAL SKYPE CHATS ON LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM. I know that
PERSONAL SKYPE CHATS ON LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM.
I know that my work is a somewhat radical innovation. And I know that I can be challenging to understand. But I am better at argument in person than I am as a writer, because I can usually tailor the argument to your frame of reference one-on-one.
If you have something you want to discuss. I’m always happy to chat with you over Skype as long as you can make a list of a one or more questions that you want to cover. We don’t have to follow the questions but I find that it’s a better use of time if people think about what they want to ask in advance.
Caveat is that I’m in the Eastern European time zone (GMT +2), and that you have to give me an hour long window rather than a specific time. (Like many aspies, I am not very cognizant of the passage of time when I am working – and I’m pretty much always working.)
If I am successful in my work then we will have a universal language, logic and grammar of objective morality based upon good science, rather than be the objects of intellectual ridicule that we are today. And the progressive, socialist, and postmoderns will have nowhere to run. And conservatives will have a formal moral language to use rather than their historicism and psychology.
We have the right answers but we have the wrong arguments. I’m trying to fix that. 🙂
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 07:05:00 UTC
-
WISDOM FROM PAUL VAHUR
WISDOM FROM PAUL VAHUR
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 01:19:00 UTC