[M]y first draft in 2006, in retrospect, is almost embarrassing. My second draft in 2010, was fairly complete, but when I got to the section where I requried truth telling in government, I’d focused on ‘calculability’ and ‘traceabilty’ as means of preventing abuses of funds, and abuses of the law. My third draft in 2013 still had me stuck with the same problem. I had no idea at the time, that six years of work later, I would have taken that early intuition and turned it into Operationalism as a test not only of truthfulness but of existential possibility. It was another year before I made it through truth. And another year to develop the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowedge, labor and advocacy resulting in the market for commons..
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
Reviewing the Last Six Years of Progress on Propertarianism
And while I was pretty sure in 2009 that the solution to government was a market, and I knew strict construction was required, I did not know the philosophical basis for it. I knew that moral intuitions were reducible to property rights, and that variations in moral intuitions reflected the property rights necessary for each reproductive bias. But from today’s vantage point I’ve come very far in the ability to articulate these ideas as necessary, and I am certainly better at communicating them, the fact of the matter is that most of what I have done is improve explanation of why such things are true and necessary. But the original understanding that the solution to the deceit of the 20th century, as the second attempt at mysticism of the west, was truth telling, and that we had to create a market for commons to accommodate the emerging heterogeneous interests of any polity with any sufficiently complex division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. I did’nt expect to end up advocating eugenic reproduction. I did not expect the racial differences to be (largely) rates of suppression of the underclasses. I did not expect to come out so strongly in favor of the family. I did not expect to demand a revolution. I viewed my work as libertarian and institutionally progressive yet it is the right that finds my work most interesting (because it proves that their intuitions are correct.) So I will finish The Politics this year, and possibly aesthetics. That means I will write up draft constitutions for various forms of propertarian political orders (honest and truthful regardless of whether collective or libertarian). A few people have asked me to address what I will call personal philosophy, even if I view my work as political and that inspiration is not my job – that’s positivist. My job is preventing deceit and error. So maybe I will do that or not. I will also deal with the DARK SUBJECTS: revolution, and war. But I do not want to do that until last. So that I think will be next year. Hopefully in time for the election. -
But fundamentally Propertarianism/Testimonialism is radical and progressive not
But fundamentally Propertarianism/Testimonialism is radical and progressive not reactionary.
Source date (UTC): 2015-09-01 09:52:18 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/638650578986487809
Reply addressees: @Outsideness @SanguineEmpiric @MatthewRenauld
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/638643403207512065
IN REPLY TO:
@Outsideness
@SanguineEmpiric @curtdoolittle @MatthewRenauld A critique of MM would have earned that ‘obviously’. Not sure response to an HRx post does.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/638643403207512065
-
REVIEWING LAST SIX YEARS OF PROGRESS ON PROPERTARIANISM My first draft in 2006,
REVIEWING LAST SIX YEARS OF PROGRESS ON PROPERTARIANISM
My first draft in 2006, in retrospect, is almost embarrassing. My second draft in 2010, was fairly complete, but when I got to the section where I requried truth telling in government, I’d focused on ‘calculability’ and ‘traceabilty’ as means of preventing abuses of funds, and abuses of the law. My third draft in 2013 still had me stuck with the same problem. I had no idea at the time, that six years of work later, I would have taken that early intuition and turned it into Operationalism as a test not only of truthfulness but of existential possibility. It was another year before I made it through truth. And another year to develop the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowedge, labor and advocacy resulting in the market for commons..
And while I was pretty sure in 2009 that the solution to government was a market, and I knew strict construction was required, I did not know the philosophical basis for it. I knew that moral intuitions were reducible to property rights, and that variations in moral intuitions reflected the property rights necessary for each reproductive bias.
But from today’s vantage point I’ve come very far in the ability to articulate these ideas as necessary, and I am certainly better at communicating them, the fact of the matter is that most of what I have done is improve explanation of why such things are true and necessary. But the original understanding that the solution to the deceit of the 20th century, as the second attempt at mysticism of the west, was truth telling, and that we had to create a market for commons to accommodate the emerging heterogeneous interests of any polity with any sufficiently complex division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy.
I did not expect to end up advocating Eugenic reproduction. I did not expect the racial differences to be (largely) rates of suppression of the underclasses. I did not expect to come out so strongly in favor of the family. I did not expect to demand a revolution. I viewed my work as libertarian and institutionally progressive yet it is the right that finds my work most interesting (because it proves that their intuitions are correct.)
So I will finish The Politics this year, and possibly aesthetics. That means I will write up draft constitutions for various forms of propertarian political orders (honest and truthful regardless of whether collective or libertarian).
A few people have asked me to address what I will call personal philosophy, even if I view my work as political and that inspiration is not my job – that’s positivist. My job is preventing deceit and error. So maybe I will do that or not.
I will also deal with the DARK SUBJECTS: revolution, and war. But I do not want to do that until last. So that I think will be next year.
Hopefully in time for the election. 😉
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-30 06:51:00 UTC
-
Q&A: ARE DOOLITTLE’S ETHICS OBJECTIVE? AND ARE THEY NORMATIVE OR DESCRIPTIVE? (f
Q&A: ARE DOOLITTLE’S ETHICS OBJECTIVE? AND ARE THEY NORMATIVE OR DESCRIPTIVE?
(from reddit)
PERSON’S REPLY
—‘Doolittle’s ethics are descriptive’— AND —‘his morality is objective’—
CURT’S RESPONSE
Understanding this requires understanding three concepts:
1) The necessity of preserving the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, by preserving the incentive to cooperate, by suppression of the imposition of costs, that would eliminate the incentive to cooperate – is purely objective. Humans instinctually evolved to disproportionately retaliate against ‘cheaters’ for this reason – those proto-humans who didn’t are gone, and those who did survived.
2) Local rents (imposed costs), normative exchanges (norms), evolve in every society (myths, rituals, norms). Some of which are neutral (attending rituals), some of which are objectively moral (caring for orphans of relations) and some of which are objectively immoral (slavery,and its many lighter variants.)
3) However, whenever there is a conflict between individuals or groups with different norms (contracts moral and immoral), all such conflicts are objectively decidable between them. In other words, groups may construct whatever internal contracts that they choose to, but between groups those contracts do not apply – only objective morality does: the non-imposition of costs stated as the limit of transfers to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of unproductive, uninformed, unwarranted transfer by externality.
So this definition of morality is **descriptive** in that it is universally demonstrated by humans as retaliation against thieves, and as groups as disproportionate retaliation against ‘cheaters’; correspondent with demands of evolutionary biology; correspondent with logical necessity, provides universal decidability in matters of retaliation; is a sufficient basis for universal law of conflict resolution (and loosely reflects the history of the western common law); and therefore is a sufficient basis for eliminating demand for an authority to render discretionary judgments in the absence of such decidability.
Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv Ukraine)
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 10:31:00 UTC
-
Q&A: DOOLITTLE: CAN TWO SETS OF MORALS BE “RIGHT”? (from reddit) USER STRAY ASKS
Q&A: DOOLITTLE: CAN TWO SETS OF MORALS BE “RIGHT”?
(from reddit)
USER STRAY ASKS
—“So is it possible for two distinct sets of morals to be “right”?—
USER CHUCK REPLIES
—“Well according to Curt, probably no, because he says that morality is absolute. But (and this is probably what you mean) two distinct strategies (to use his language) could both be “right”, i.e. “moral”. However one might be more “moral” than the other, depending on its ability to promote the end. For example. As such, we can measure whether some cultures are more moral than others, by measuring the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding) that is suppressed by law and norm. Ultimately I could be wrong about all of this. It would be best for someone who knows Curt’s work better to explain it, perhaps even Curt himself.”—
CURT REPLIES
I think you’ve done a great job really. I can add minor clarity.
1) We may prefer different ends, but we can still cooperate voluntarily upon means. Then we discover at the conclusion which was right or not. This is the secret of the market. My work on politics is to create a market for commons (goods that cannot be privatized) rather than the monopoly means of production of commons we have under democracy. This lets us produce commons that compete if we want, but cooperate on their production. (In Seattle the train vs monorail debate was nonsense: do both.)
2) our individual and group strategies may consist of a combination of objectively moral and immoral preferences. within group these differences are resolvable by contractual means. Across group they are resolvable by objective means.
3) if we are not engaging in cooperation then morality has no meaning, since morality is merely the necessity of preservation of cooperation. In other words, when we resort to preying upon one another we have abandoned morality. In practice humans rarely do this. We actually engage in punishment in an attempt to restore cooperation.
Mobs are scary things. Outliers are scary things. That is why we kill off people that make us nervous in group and out-group.
That’s why ancapism never works. The only people for whom it is rational to join such a polity over another with greater legal coverage has historically been slavery, piracy, black marketing, or some financial equivalent. And the reason these groups dont’ exist is because we exterminate them as parasites.
Its the same reason we punish animal cruelty. “People who do that kind of thing are f—ing dangerous to us. That kid who mows over a kitten is destined to be a serial killer.” etc. The ancap is destined to engage in parasitism. Why? well, why else would he choose a low trust legal code over a high trust legal code?
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv Ukraine)
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 10:25:00 UTC
-
Q&A: Curt Can You Give Me Simple Answers?
—“So how does one define morality in this view [Propertarianism]? What is its foundation?”— At a minimum, non-impositions of costs upon property-en-toto, and at the median a prohibition on free riding, and at the maximum the requirement for mutual insurance, thus preserving the incentive to cooperate and gain the disproportionate rewards of cooperating all along the cooperative spectrum. (This is in fact, what our moral intuitions evolved for and remain.)
-“What is operationalism and how does it work in concrete terms?”— A testimony (or promise or description) stated as an existentially possible sequence of subjectively testable operations. Explanation: It is the equivalent of a proof in mathematics: a test that a mathematical statement can be constructed from existentially possible operations. It is the equivalent of a recipe for baking a cake (or any other repeatable operation.) The purpose of operationalism and Eprime is to ensure that the individual has laundered error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from his speech. An example would be your use of the terms ‘morality, view, foundation, what-is, ‘ and ‘concrete’ which are vague analogies sufficient for colloquial speech but both illustrate that you do not know the existentially possible terminology you could and should use if you know the existential rather than analogistic construction of those concepts. In moral speech operational tests not only force the speaker to know what he is talking about, but also, when combined with full accounting, parsimony, and productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange and a prohibition on negative externalities, then it is very obvious at each operation (action) to determine if someone is acting morally or immorally. It is a tedious manner of speech (just as programming is a tedious means of instruction) however out of this tedious requirement, it becomes very hard to error, bias, wishfully present, and deceptively convey ideas. –“I find this suspicious: “The problem is that [propertarianism] really requires a course””– Why? Why do people need a course on Nietzche, Marx or Postmodernism? Don’t first year micro and macro economics, each form of mathematics, first year public choice theory, basic rhetoric, evolution, first year accounting, first year contract,.. and on and on require a course? Why is it that you think that something that has taken 2500 years to solve, by a host of minds greater than mine, should be somehow trivial to convey? I’m a pretty smart guy and I spent two entire years on truth. Can you even tell me what ‘true’ means? So it’s non logical that this should be an easy subject. Brouwer, Bridgman, Popper, Hayek and Mises failed. Why should it be trivial? -
Q&A: Curt Can You Give Me Simple Answers?
—“So how does one define morality in this view [Propertarianism]? What is its foundation?”— At a minimum, non-impositions of costs upon property-en-toto, and at the median a prohibition on free riding, and at the maximum the requirement for mutual insurance, thus preserving the incentive to cooperate and gain the disproportionate rewards of cooperating all along the cooperative spectrum. (This is in fact, what our moral intuitions evolved for and remain.)
-“What is operationalism and how does it work in concrete terms?”— A testimony (or promise or description) stated as an existentially possible sequence of subjectively testable operations. Explanation: It is the equivalent of a proof in mathematics: a test that a mathematical statement can be constructed from existentially possible operations. It is the equivalent of a recipe for baking a cake (or any other repeatable operation.) The purpose of operationalism and Eprime is to ensure that the individual has laundered error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from his speech. An example would be your use of the terms ‘morality, view, foundation, what-is, ‘ and ‘concrete’ which are vague analogies sufficient for colloquial speech but both illustrate that you do not know the existentially possible terminology you could and should use if you know the existential rather than analogistic construction of those concepts. In moral speech operational tests not only force the speaker to know what he is talking about, but also, when combined with full accounting, parsimony, and productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange and a prohibition on negative externalities, then it is very obvious at each operation (action) to determine if someone is acting morally or immorally. It is a tedious manner of speech (just as programming is a tedious means of instruction) however out of this tedious requirement, it becomes very hard to error, bias, wishfully present, and deceptively convey ideas. –“I find this suspicious: “The problem is that [propertarianism] really requires a course””– Why? Why do people need a course on Nietzche, Marx or Postmodernism? Don’t first year micro and macro economics, each form of mathematics, first year public choice theory, basic rhetoric, evolution, first year accounting, first year contract,.. and on and on require a course? Why is it that you think that something that has taken 2500 years to solve, by a host of minds greater than mine, should be somehow trivial to convey? I’m a pretty smart guy and I spent two entire years on truth. Can you even tell me what ‘true’ means? So it’s non logical that this should be an easy subject. Brouwer, Bridgman, Popper, Hayek and Mises failed. Why should it be trivial? -
Why Do We Want Non-Imposition of Costs Against Demonstrated Property?
[B]ecause in the libertine vision of man, we just ‘move on’ after we have been imposed upon by some sort of cheating. But this is not true. The strong prefer, and enjoy conquest, enslavement, rape, pillaging. It eliminates competitors quickly and permanently. So cooperation must be preferable to conquest. Why shouldn’t I kill a rothbardian and take his stuff rather than allow myself to be subject to low trust, low economic velocity, high transaction costs, constant parasitism, and feeding and funding of competitors? The answer is that I prefer rapid killing, raping and taking to slow parasitic conquest. Westerners take the christian ethic beyond its limits. All theories have limits. That is why there are no certain premises. Forgiving error and buying cooperation by forgiving a parasitism, is not the same as feeding parasites who them compete with and conquer you. Conquest is evidence of the failure of genes and ideas. CHRISTIAN LOVE IS A ‘PUT’: A SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT NOT A UNIVERSAL GOOD.
-
Why Do We Want Non-Imposition of Costs Against Demonstrated Property?
[B]ecause in the libertine vision of man, we just ‘move on’ after we have been imposed upon by some sort of cheating. But this is not true. The strong prefer, and enjoy conquest, enslavement, rape, pillaging. It eliminates competitors quickly and permanently. So cooperation must be preferable to conquest. Why shouldn’t I kill a rothbardian and take his stuff rather than allow myself to be subject to low trust, low economic velocity, high transaction costs, constant parasitism, and feeding and funding of competitors? The answer is that I prefer rapid killing, raping and taking to slow parasitic conquest. Westerners take the christian ethic beyond its limits. All theories have limits. That is why there are no certain premises. Forgiving error and buying cooperation by forgiving a parasitism, is not the same as feeding parasites who them compete with and conquer you. Conquest is evidence of the failure of genes and ideas. CHRISTIAN LOVE IS A ‘PUT’: A SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT NOT A UNIVERSAL GOOD.
-
Loyalty: Forgoing Opportunities.
[L]OYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure (genetic, normative, physical, institutional, territorial) that you and others have been contributing to. The limit of opportunity. (The family, tribe, and nation)
James: Can “loyalty” also be the assumption or even shouldering of risks or costs, without a clear or immediate return?
Curt Doolittle: Yes