[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
[T]he truth may be an advantage, neutral, or disadvantage for you. But if the truth is a disadvantage, that does not mean that we need to lie to preserve that advantage. Instead, we need to determine what we have to trade to restore it. But there are two reasons that we cannot conduct a trade to restore an advantage: (a) the institutions make trade impossible (as does democracy), or (b) you seek avoiding the payment of the cost of the exchange to obtain the advantage. THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES
[T]he truth may be an advantage, neutral, or disadvantage for you. But if the truth is a disadvantage, that does not mean that we need to lie to preserve that advantage. Instead, we need to determine what we have to trade to restore it. But there are two reasons that we cannot conduct a trade to restore an advantage: (a) the institutions make trade impossible (as does democracy), or (b) you seek avoiding the payment of the cost of the exchange to obtain the advantage. THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES
[M]y “thing” is truth. Propertarianism solves the problem of cooperation in morally heterogeneous societies by the construction of a market for commons just as we constructed a market for goods and services: but incrementally suppressing parasitism in the production of commons (government) just as we incrementally suppressed parasitism in the production of goods and services (the market). In that sense I am a radical(progressive), and propertarianism is radical (an alteration of the status quo. That propertarianism alters the status quo by suppressing the parasitism of dysgenic socialists, is either an improvement in truth or a devolution of free riding.
[M]y “thing” is truth. Propertarianism solves the problem of cooperation in morally heterogeneous societies by the construction of a market for commons just as we constructed a market for goods and services: but incrementally suppressing parasitism in the production of commons (government) just as we incrementally suppressed parasitism in the production of goods and services (the market). In that sense I am a radical(progressive), and propertarianism is radical (an alteration of the status quo. That propertarianism alters the status quo by suppressing the parasitism of dysgenic socialists, is either an improvement in truth or a devolution of free riding.
LIBERTARIANISM IS REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS…OR ISNT IT? http://angrybearblog.com/2015/08/libertarianism-simplified-the-three-proper-powers-of-government.html [R]ule of Law (universal application, universal standing), Common Law (organic), Property en Toto (right to seek restitution for any imposition upon anything constructed by the bearing of costs: that which is obtained by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality of the same criteria. The challenge for libertarians has been the definition of private property: that which one can seek restitution for in court under rule of law. Saying we defend it without defining it is an incomplete statement that allows the audience to assume his concept of private property is what the speaker refers to. This is a cute act of suggestion that inspires moral affiliation, but it is not sufficient for representation as the basis for law that provides non discretionary decidability in matters of conflict. Rothbardians define property with the ethics of pastoralists and the ghetto: inter subjectively verifiable property. These are the low trust ethics of the steppe, levant, and medieval ghetto. If we look at high trust societies instead, they assert property rights not only to physical property, but to all property that causes conflict and retaliation for the imposition of costs. So humans demonstrate that they treat as their property all that they have expended resources to obtain with the expectation of a monopoly of control(private), fruits from(shareholder property), and prevention from consumption (commons). We agree to enforce retaliation or restitution against impositions against all of those forms of property. But why? Because the most scarce and rewarding good is cooperation. We evolve moral intuitions, moral and ethical rules, manners, laws and traditions to preserve the value of cooperation. Property rights then represent a warranty by the group members of those forms of property that one has acquired or invested in or refrained from the consumption of, in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate and the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, including the rewards from the production of commons- property rights being the first commons. The origin of property preceded cooperation. The origin of morality followed cooperation. The origin of rights evolved from morality. Law evolved from the need for uniform application of restitution for impositions upon property. Property rights did not evolve from the scarcity of goods but from the gradual atomization of the family in the increasingly individualistic division of labor. So while libertarianism contains comforting memes, it is predicated on a number of half truths and falsehoods. The problem we face is the preservation of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation. Property rights – insuring one another – are the means by which we do so. As such, the scope of property necessary for an anarchic polity is that which preserves the will to cooperate. And as far as we know, that is a high trust requirement. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian institute Kiev, Ukraine. Libertarianism is reducible to rule of law under the total prohibition against the imposition of costs against that property necessary to preserve the incentives to cooperate.
LIBERTARIANISM IS REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS…OR ISNT IT? http://angrybearblog.com/2015/08/libertarianism-simplified-the-three-proper-powers-of-government.html [R]ule of Law (universal application, universal standing), Common Law (organic), Property en Toto (right to seek restitution for any imposition upon anything constructed by the bearing of costs: that which is obtained by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality of the same criteria. The challenge for libertarians has been the definition of private property: that which one can seek restitution for in court under rule of law. Saying we defend it without defining it is an incomplete statement that allows the audience to assume his concept of private property is what the speaker refers to. This is a cute act of suggestion that inspires moral affiliation, but it is not sufficient for representation as the basis for law that provides non discretionary decidability in matters of conflict. Rothbardians define property with the ethics of pastoralists and the ghetto: inter subjectively verifiable property. These are the low trust ethics of the steppe, levant, and medieval ghetto. If we look at high trust societies instead, they assert property rights not only to physical property, but to all property that causes conflict and retaliation for the imposition of costs. So humans demonstrate that they treat as their property all that they have expended resources to obtain with the expectation of a monopoly of control(private), fruits from(shareholder property), and prevention from consumption (commons). We agree to enforce retaliation or restitution against impositions against all of those forms of property. But why? Because the most scarce and rewarding good is cooperation. We evolve moral intuitions, moral and ethical rules, manners, laws and traditions to preserve the value of cooperation. Property rights then represent a warranty by the group members of those forms of property that one has acquired or invested in or refrained from the consumption of, in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate and the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, including the rewards from the production of commons- property rights being the first commons. The origin of property preceded cooperation. The origin of morality followed cooperation. The origin of rights evolved from morality. Law evolved from the need for uniform application of restitution for impositions upon property. Property rights did not evolve from the scarcity of goods but from the gradual atomization of the family in the increasingly individualistic division of labor. So while libertarianism contains comforting memes, it is predicated on a number of half truths and falsehoods. The problem we face is the preservation of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation. Property rights – insuring one another – are the means by which we do so. As such, the scope of property necessary for an anarchic polity is that which preserves the will to cooperate. And as far as we know, that is a high trust requirement. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian institute Kiev, Ukraine. Libertarianism is reducible to rule of law under the total prohibition against the imposition of costs against that property necessary to preserve the incentives to cooperate.
Q&A:
—“So how does one define morality in this view? 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) delivered 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. 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 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?
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-19 15:56:00 UTC
WHY DO WE WANT NON-IMPOSITION OF COSTS AGAINST DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY AS A MEANS OF PRESERVING COOPERATION?
Because 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.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-15 05:57:00 UTC
OVERTURNING NAP WITH NAP/IVP AND NAP/DP
NAP does not make a legal framework btw. And pretty much all libertarian authors have stated so.
Rothbardian Low trust (Ghetto) Ethics: Non aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property. (permits blackmail etc), does not preserve the incentive for cooperation.
Aristocratic High trust (warrior) Ethics: Non aggression against property-en-toto, for the total preservation of cooperation.
NAP/IVP (Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics) are insufficient incentive for the establishment or maintenance of a voluntary polity since the transaction costs alone are sufficient to drive demand for authoritarianism as a means of suppressing retaliation.
NAP/Property-en-toto (Aristocratic Warrior Ethics) provide sufficient incentive to eliminate demand for authority since the scope of law is sufficient to provide a means of dispute resolution (retaliation) regardless of method or scope.
The problem we face in constructing a voluntary polity is that the law must provide sufficient suppression of parasitism (aggression against that which others have expended resources to obtain) such that there is no incentive to demand the state as a means of dispute resolution.
Rothbard’s NAP/IVP is an insufficient basis for law and cannot produce an anarchic polity(civil society), while AHT/PT is a sufficient basis for law and can produce an anarchic polity (civil society).
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-15 01:13:00 UTC