Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • COMPLETING MY ANALYSIS OF LESTER (FINAL WORD NECESSARY I SUSPECT) (thanks to Kar

    COMPLETING MY ANALYSIS OF LESTER (FINAL WORD NECESSARY I SUSPECT)

    (thanks to Karl for helping me with this topic)

    An individual, a gang of thugs, and members of a state, all may impose costs on you. They call may conduct criminal, unethical and immoral actions. However since it takes more than one to conspire, only a gang and a state can conspire. And since it requires a state (a territorial monopoly) to violate your liberty (freedom of interference from the state) then only state actors, by definition, can violate liberty in fact, while the gang and a group and an individual can only violate your liberty by ANALOGY. They can all engage in immoral actions, where the spectrum of immorality includes criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions.

    Why is this very technical argument necessary? Because it shows that while morality (freedom from imposed costs) evolved, and for the purpose of distinction, was divided into morality and liberty, all Lester has done is to divide Liberty into two categories: Political Liberty and Interpersonal Liberty, by constructing the NAME interpersonal liberty, (which is itself a contradiction in terms), and claiming that he has made a pre moral pre-property argument. He hasn’t. He’s just made up a new word. That doesn’t diminish that he worked backwards from political liberty to identify morality, but it does mean that his claim that he has created a pre-moral definition of liberty is false.

    History tells us that morality evolved first, and that Liberty evolved second, like rule of law, a constraint upon the government, no matter how that government was constructed, that it must perpetuate and not violate those moral rules. Religion even today constrains government to not violate moral rules – that is why conservatives are successful.

    Science tells us that (a) humans evolved to be acquisitive of many things, and changes in human gratification, are synonymous with changes in property en toto, (b) morality, and agitated punishment for moral violation, evolved as instinct against free riding and imposting costs against property en toto, of those with whom we cooperate in order to prevent parasitism, (c) property rights adjudicable under law, constitute a contractual agreement to resolve conflicts over only a subset of those forms of property needed for cooperation in the community given its division of knowledge and labor, and (d) the subset of property necessary to construct liberty (from the state) is that which prevents enough retaliation for any moral violation in the possible scope of moral violations, that will produce conflict or retaliation, and therefore demand for an authoritarian state, to either suppress retaliation or apply violence to those who violate moral rules outside of courts, and; (e) the subset that prevents demand for government is the construction of contractual institutions rather than authoritarian instructions which allow the construction of enforceable contracts for the production of commons necessary for any group to compete against any other group, as well as those commons which groups wish to prevent from consumption (parks etc).

    Lester practices “get away with it’ Truth. He’s a cosmopolitan libertine using marxist arguments and hiding behind a misrepresentation of critical rationalism – which is in itself hermeneutic and cosmopolitan. He has constructed and makes use of extant meaning, not action or necessity. As such I cannot use his work. He is the kind of fuzzy thinker that we require propertarianism, operationalism and testimonial truth to defend ourselves from – and therefore end the century of pseudoscientific and pseudo philosophical mysticism.

    I have sketched this out enough times that I have reduced the necessary argument to this little bit. It has taken me, as usual, quite a bit of effort to do so. But as far as I know, my criticism of Lester is the best extant, and he is little other than another example of the culture of critique: a cosmopolitan of libertine sentiments using marxist arguments like most libertine libertarians will be all but impossible to refute.

    So as far as I know, Lester not immoral like Rothbard, he’s just immaterial.

    I may refine this a net or two, but it’s pretty much rock solid. Like I say. I am good at what I do. It’s just an objective observation. It sounds like egoism – but the truth is it’s because I work very, very hard, and no other reason. When I construct a debate it is so that I can learn under fire. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian after all.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-22 16:10:00 UTC

  • WHY? I AM RABIDLY PRO-UKRAINIAN. Why? Because I am an Aristocratic Libertarian.

    WHY? I AM RABIDLY PRO-UKRAINIAN.

    Why? Because I am an Aristocratic Libertarian.

    PHILOSOPHICALLY

    (a) all people who desire them have the right to property if they will grant the same right to others.

    (b) all peoples have the right to self determination so that they may have the right to property and organize property and family according to their needs.

    (c) all people have the right to higher levels of freedom, with more atomic property rights if they so desire it.

    (d) The aristocratic EGALITARIAN contract requires that in order to secure my liberty I must fight to extend that liberty to all who desire it, and will do the same for me. That is the meaning of ‘egalitarian’ in ‘Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarianism (open entry to all who desire it).”

    POLITICALLY

    (e) No government may interfere with the INDIVIDUAL fulfillment of the aristocratic egalitarian contract.

    (f) As such Aristocratic Egalitarianism’s mutual insurance of individual and political property rights constitutes a standard of moral action that supersedes all other agreements and obligations.

    (g) Therefore Aristocratic Egalitarianism must be treated with the same argumentative, political and moral status, or higher status, than that of religion.

    PRAGMATICALLY

    (h) Russians have created more brutality, murder and genocide than any race other than the Chinese, and much of it against their own people – which is even worse.

    (i) Reformation of Russia and its incorporation (as Gorbachev aspired) into the european people’s is beneficial for all white peoples. Even if it is a very high cost.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 07:05:00 UTC

  • NEW VIDEO IN PRODUCTION : Ancestral Lands We just finished recording a new Prope

    NEW VIDEO IN PRODUCTION : Ancestral Lands

    We just finished recording a new Propertarian video on “Ancestral Lands”, where we extend Lockeian theory from the interpersonal and communal, to the level of civilizations. The central argument isn’t terribly complicated. But we made a number of deep digressions which in themselves are very interesting, and so we managed to fill the entire 30 minutes.

    The studio will give the video to us mid-week, and we will try to get it edited and posted by next weekend.

    NEXT UP:

    1) Roman wants to address why we need to abandon the NAP, and adopt high trust.

    2) After a conversation with Osku, I think, it would be helpful if I addressed inter-polity (inter-state) ethics where high trust is not necessary, and intra-polity (within-state) ethics, where thigh trust **IS** necessary. Because the NAP is sufficient for inter-polity, but not sufficient for intra-polity ethics. You cannot apply the ethics of the family (kin selection) to the state, any more than the ethics of cooperation between states to the family.

    3) After talking to Roman, it seems like we should point out that Propertarianism is a formal logic applicable to all polities and all allocations of property: a DESCRIPTIVE ethics. Whereas Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a recommendation for the competitive advantage in production of high trust aristocratic polities.

    4) After reviewing our talk today, I missed two points necessary to harden the argument, I think are important and will have to edit those in somehow.

    5) It seems that I should address immigration, movement of people to capital versus movement of capital to people, the impact on the different measures of economics by immigration (or exit). And the need to re-nationalize liberalism (liberty) or we shall lose it.

    6) I covered it today, but I suppose I should do a piece on the structure of the family, the division of labor, property rights, liberty, demand for the state, and trust, using diagrams. I don’t think it’s that difficult but it seems to be hard for people ot grasp the relationships between them as necessary.

    Following those, I think I’ll work my way through each topic in the table of contents, one video at a time.

    TOPIC REQUESTS

    Of course, I want to address the more complex topics that are personally fascinating to me and perhaps other philosophers, but those topics are not that interesting (and perhaps more confusing) for most people. So I would like to address those ideas that are both unclear and necessary to understand, instead of those ideas that are unclear but unnecessary to understand.

    So if you have a topic that you want me to discuss please post here or send a message.

    Thanks

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-20 16:52:00 UTC

  • THE TERNARY LOGIC OF COOPERATION 1) The ternary logic of cooperation consists of

    THE TERNARY LOGIC OF COOPERATION

    1) The ternary logic of cooperation consists of three possible states: Violence(predation), Cooperation (exchange), and Avoidance (boycott); and cooperation, whether rational or pre-rational, is only beneficial if productive and non-parasitic (is absent of free riding/imposed cost). Even the advocacy of free riding, Involuntary transfer and imposed costs is an act of fraud.

    2) We have invented a series of incrementally complex logical instruments that permit us to isolate properties and make comparisons, an without which we cannot make comparisons. All forms of ‘calculation’ (in the widest sense) depend upon these

    a) Properties (identities) and Categories (sets) : Logic (description)

    b) Counting (multiples) and Naming (numbering) : Arithmetic (quantities)

    c) Measures and Ratios : Mathematics (relations)

    d) Causal Relations : Physics (causality)

    e) Forecasting (time) and Planning (acting) : The Logic of Action

    f) Cooperation : The Ternary Logic of Cooperation (production)

    The Ternary Logic of Cooperation constitutes the missing ‘logic’ of cooperation.

    Western Philosophy is first and foremost, in itself, the logic of rational action – the tools we use to rationalize action in the world. I have abandoned the attempt to restate praxeology and abandoned the term praxeology as unrecoverable, given both the ideological commitment of its adherents, the logical and empirical failure of misesian praxeology as pseudoscientific, and the absurdly primitive levantine immorality of rothbardianism. So at this point I’ve decided to go forward using the “Ternary Logic of Cooperation” and the in-group prohibition on free riding and the out-group restatement of free riding as a prohibition on imposed costs.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-03 08:35:00 UTC

  • OF COOPERATION, NOT JUSTICE Want to thank Skye Stewart for sharing Friedman’s bo

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHTj0iccdVM&feature=youtube_gdata+-+Video+Tube+for+YouTube+-+AndroidLAW OF COOPERATION, NOT JUSTICE

    Want to thank Skye Stewart for sharing Friedman’s book and video with me. I’d originally thought it was a statement of the obvious for those of us with economic backgrounds. But for the rest of the world, the importance of the fallacy of justice as taught in law, and the importance of economic thought in replacing that fallacy, is probably as central to the reformation of political thinking as is the fact that all rights are reducible to property rights, and that rights can only be obtained in exchange.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-01 04:39:00 UTC

  • 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

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-29 09:14:00 UTC

  • It’s going to work you know. It’s going to work. Because I”m watching it work. I

    It’s going to work you know. It’s going to work. Because I”m watching it work. If they guys can learn to argue both AE and Propertarianism, it’s going to work. Sort of like fight club. 🙂 Let them train up then go pick fights. 🙂 The more fights you pick, the better a fighter you become. The more fights we win, the more we win.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-28 10:23:00 UTC

  • WE NEED ONE HUNDRED My job, I think, is to solve the problem of western ethics a

    WE NEED ONE HUNDRED

    My job, I think, is to solve the problem of western ethics as an evolutionary strategy, formally, and if possible reduce it to aphorisms. I’ve had very good advice to leave dumbing it down so to speak, to others.

    But I always keep both Einstein and Darwin in mind: for all the people who talk of Einstein, very few understand the central idea in context of the history of ‘thinking’ rather than the history of science. And Darwin to this day is constantly misunderstood even by people who claim to. Relativity(invariance) shouldn’t have been an intellectual problem, and directionlessness (outside of complexity) shouldn’t be either. Science as a discipline is not even understood by philosophers of science.

    As far as I can tell one or two humans define something useful, some small fraction of a percent of people understand it, and talk about it. Some slightly larger fraction of people teach and employ the application of it. And everyone else treats it as a given because someone can demonstrate the application in some way or another.

    When you talk about ethics, and the institutions that enforce ethical action, and the philosophy that defends those propositions, all that matters are the institutions, the few guardians of them, and everyone else runs on Epstein’s ‘Simple Rules’: aphorisms in my case. They have to. They don’t have any other choice. Understanding at any depth is not only impossible for most but unnecessary. Imitation provides what understanding fails to.

    So when I say ‘understanding is overrated’ that’s what I mean. Knowledge of construction is necessary for truth statements, but knowledge of use (application), and the recognition that the conceptual tools work for purposes intended, is all that is POSSIBLE, for all but a few members of a society. I dont confuse understanding with utility, acceptance, or at least non-rejection.

    I just need 100 people (aspie-leaning guys preferably) who can:

    (a) to argue aristocratic egalitarianism as the only possible source of liberty, and the necessity and utility of violence for the construction of good.

    (b) argue in the propertarian method: using economic language to reduce all of ethics to the grammar of voluntary exchanges.

    (c) argue propertarian ethics: the spectrum of free riding, imposed cost and involuntary transfer.

    (d) argue the structures of the family, production, and property rights in the development of trust and reduction of transaction costs, in creating the demand for, or lack of demand for the state.

    (e) at least hobble their way through testimonial truth, operationalism. empiricism, and instrumentalism. The deeper arguments here are fairly difficult I think.

    There are plenty of sub-arguments, but if people can master the (bullshit) of rothbardian drivel, or argue with the (nonsense) of conservative romanticism, or spew the various forms of (lying, deceitful) postmodernism, socialism, and marxism, then arguing the propertarianism instead of errors, fallacies and lies ought to be fairly easy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-27 04:24:00 UTC

  • Clarification: The Ethical Spectrum

    CLARIFYING THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM

    [R]oman has suggested that I try to clarify:

    (a) Ethical statements are truths, not Preferences.

    (b) Some groups prefer MORE moral and ethical societies, and some LESS moral and ethical societies, depending upon the homogeneity of the group.

    (c) Criminal, Ethical, Moral and Conspiratorial prohibitions constitute a spectrum from the most personally experiential to the most distant and indirect. An homogenous society can prohibit many forms of unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial conduct. However, heterogeneous societies do not benefit from enforcing ethical moral and conspiratorial prohibitions, since this prohibits inter-group parasitism.

    (d) Humans compete by cooperating. Even though we are cooperating we are still competing. We are just competing productively rather than destructively. He who breeds wins.

  • Clarification: The Ethical Spectrum

    CLARIFYING THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM

    [R]oman has suggested that I try to clarify:

    (a) Ethical statements are truths, not Preferences.

    (b) Some groups prefer MORE moral and ethical societies, and some LESS moral and ethical societies, depending upon the homogeneity of the group.

    (c) Criminal, Ethical, Moral and Conspiratorial prohibitions constitute a spectrum from the most personally experiential to the most distant and indirect. An homogenous society can prohibit many forms of unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial conduct. However, heterogeneous societies do not benefit from enforcing ethical moral and conspiratorial prohibitions, since this prohibits inter-group parasitism.

    (d) Humans compete by cooperating. Even though we are cooperating we are still competing. We are just competing productively rather than destructively. He who breeds wins.