Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • Polymoralism And Commons

    POLYMORALISM AND COMMONS

    [A]nd of course there are other options: Land can be owned by no one. Land can be owned by one person. Land can be owned by a group of contractual shareholders. Land can be owned by normative shareholders.

    The problem of a commons lies in determining use of a resource that CAN be consumed. However not all resources that are are useful can be consumed tragically. Some resources, and perhaps the most valuable resources are those which we agree NOT to consume. As such, those things we prohibit consumption of. All property consists of prohibitions. Commons consist of universal prohibitions. The tragedy of the commons applies ONLY to unelectable consumption, and the cost of administering unelectable consumption.

    Shareholder agreements universally construct commons, but disallow consumption of those commons except as distributed under the terms of the agreement. So not only can we produce commons by shareholder agreement, nearly all commons are so produced. The problem is not the production of commons, or the constitution of commons or the existence of commons, but that statists license the consumption of commons, and as hoppe has illustrated, distribute the commons (consume it) rather than save it (as did monarchs).

    Parks for example serve as monuments which produce ‘goods’ indefinitely if they are not consumed. We merely need to prevent consumption of the land, in order for the good produced by parks to persist. Of the many kinds of monuments, it is one of the hardest to prevent the consumption of. Because it is the easiest to consume.

    Just as property rights, rule of law, and other norms are expensive monuments to construct, and to persist, without consuming them. And they can be consumed, easily, if we do not prevent their consumption.

    Many norms require high constant costs of observation. Property as an informal institution does. Property rights are merely a legal definition of the norm of property. But the norm of property is produced as are all commons, by requiring a contribution (sacrifice of opportunity) and teh forcible prevention of consumption by that which is not normatively defined.

    This is inescapable since property itself as an institution must be so constructed.

    THE “LIBERTINE” LIBERTARIANS

    [T]he “Libertines” simply try to license unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior by defining away norms. And while some norms may be arbitrary (signals or rituals), those norms that construct and persist commons are not.

    Cosmopolitans just created an elaborate system of pseudo-rationalism to circumvent ethics and morality, in order to justify poly moral in-group-vs out-group morality that renders commons impossible to construct.

    However, the Western competitive advantage over the rest of the world was the trust started by the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, which allowed the aristocracy to form, and which all others in society attempted to imitate not only to obtain status as a reproductive improvement, but because trust did in fact, non-symbolically, but functionally, produce consistently higher returns than non-trust.

    Game. Set. Match. The end of the pseudoscientific century. Libertinism. Cosmopolitanism. Rothbardiansm. Misesianism are just like socialism and neoconservatism, cosmopolitan systems of pseudoscientific propaganda imitating the framing and overloading of abrahamic authoritarianism. Elaborate verbalisms.

    (I have pretty much put a fork in it. Rothbard isn’t just wrong. It’s worse than that.)

    Curt

  • Polymoralism And Commons

    POLYMORALISM AND COMMONS

    [A]nd of course there are other options: Land can be owned by no one. Land can be owned by one person. Land can be owned by a group of contractual shareholders. Land can be owned by normative shareholders.

    The problem of a commons lies in determining use of a resource that CAN be consumed. However not all resources that are are useful can be consumed tragically. Some resources, and perhaps the most valuable resources are those which we agree NOT to consume. As such, those things we prohibit consumption of. All property consists of prohibitions. Commons consist of universal prohibitions. The tragedy of the commons applies ONLY to unelectable consumption, and the cost of administering unelectable consumption.

    Shareholder agreements universally construct commons, but disallow consumption of those commons except as distributed under the terms of the agreement. So not only can we produce commons by shareholder agreement, nearly all commons are so produced. The problem is not the production of commons, or the constitution of commons or the existence of commons, but that statists license the consumption of commons, and as hoppe has illustrated, distribute the commons (consume it) rather than save it (as did monarchs).

    Parks for example serve as monuments which produce ‘goods’ indefinitely if they are not consumed. We merely need to prevent consumption of the land, in order for the good produced by parks to persist. Of the many kinds of monuments, it is one of the hardest to prevent the consumption of. Because it is the easiest to consume.

    Just as property rights, rule of law, and other norms are expensive monuments to construct, and to persist, without consuming them. And they can be consumed, easily, if we do not prevent their consumption.

    Many norms require high constant costs of observation. Property as an informal institution does. Property rights are merely a legal definition of the norm of property. But the norm of property is produced as are all commons, by requiring a contribution (sacrifice of opportunity) and teh forcible prevention of consumption by that which is not normatively defined.

    This is inescapable since property itself as an institution must be so constructed.

    THE “LIBERTINE” LIBERTARIANS

    [T]he “Libertines” simply try to license unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior by defining away norms. And while some norms may be arbitrary (signals or rituals), those norms that construct and persist commons are not.

    Cosmopolitans just created an elaborate system of pseudo-rationalism to circumvent ethics and morality, in order to justify poly moral in-group-vs out-group morality that renders commons impossible to construct.

    However, the Western competitive advantage over the rest of the world was the trust started by the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, which allowed the aristocracy to form, and which all others in society attempted to imitate not only to obtain status as a reproductive improvement, but because trust did in fact, non-symbolically, but functionally, produce consistently higher returns than non-trust.

    Game. Set. Match. The end of the pseudoscientific century. Libertinism. Cosmopolitanism. Rothbardiansm. Misesianism are just like socialism and neoconservatism, cosmopolitan systems of pseudoscientific propaganda imitating the framing and overloading of abrahamic authoritarianism. Elaborate verbalisms.

    (I have pretty much put a fork in it. Rothbard isn’t just wrong. It’s worse than that.)

    Curt

  • DAMNIT: (Sigh) JUSTIFICATION Justification is necessary for commons….. Well, n

    DAMNIT: (Sigh) JUSTIFICATION

    Justification is necessary for commons….. Well, now I have to revisit CR/CP again….

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-24 08:58:00 UTC

  • CLARIFYING THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM Roman has suggested that I try to clarify: (a) E

    CLARIFYING THE ETHICAL SPECTRUM

    Roman 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-21 11:27:00 UTC

  • WHAT CONSTITUTES “ETHICS” AND WHAT MAKES CERTAIN ETHICAL STATEMENTS UNIVERSAL? –

    WHAT CONSTITUTES “ETHICS” AND WHAT MAKES CERTAIN ETHICAL STATEMENTS UNIVERSAL?

    —” what constitutes ethics and what makes certain ethical values it universal?”—

    Cooperation (forgoing opportunity to use violence) is non logical under conditions of parasitism, imposed costs, or free riding. Voluntary exchange is only rational if mutually productive, and free of negative externality.

    Now, if one exists in a tribal family structure (say levantine or arabic) or in an outbred family structure (northern Europe), whether one is ‘free riding’ on whom may constitute different ethical preferences. One group may prefer a less moral and ethical society, and another may prefer a more moral and ethical society. In other words, in a low-trust in-bred polity (Jews, gypsies, arabs) one is expected to act on behalf of the family at all costs. (See Banfield’s The Moral Basis of a Backward Society). However, this inbreeding is a reproductive strategy. (See Emmanuel Todd) Just as jewish and Gypsy near breeding is a reproductive strategy. (See Macdonald) These groups practice dual ethical systems: high trust-in-group and low-trust out-group. Only northern europeans, who practice the absolute nuclear family, evolved high trust ethics – a total prohibition on parasitism, imposed costs, and free riding. Because only northern Europeans succeeded in breaking the family and tribal fealties through manorialism, outbreeding and property rights. It was an economic advantage for westerners to develop universalism. But that universalism independent of separatism, is uncompetitive.

    Ethical rules are universal. We choose a m ore ethical society or a less ethical society given the diversity or heterogeneity of the population.

    (Period. End of Argument. Much to the displeasure of many.)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-21 11:20:00 UTC

  • Exchanging one’s wealth of violence for cooperation, is only rational in the abs

    Exchanging one’s wealth of violence for cooperation, is only rational in the absence if parasitism.

    Parasitism and insurance are two very different things.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-21 10:08:00 UTC

  • RETURN ON RESPECT FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS? What is the return on an individual’s res

    RETURN ON RESPECT FOR PROPERTY RIGHTS?

    What is the return on an individual’s respect for property rights?

    For him?

    For the polity?

    For man?

    We cannot construct the voluntary organization without widespread respect.

    So then how do we calculate the cost if that adherence?

    Labor has no known value except in exchange. At which point we learn its value.

    But respect for property rights, and active construction and perpetuation of them, always produces value.

    Earlier thinkers assumed that membership and participation in the market was sufficient compensation for respecting property rights.

    But this exchange was possible only because of the possibility of entry.

    In a world of mandatory inclusion, this choice no longer exists.

    In a world of marginally different productivity, where the underclasses no longer can provide useful skills, they are mandatorially included, but necessarily excluded.

    In fact, their only value is in providing instructions in the form of demand, for the organization of production to satisfy their wants and to reward producers.

    But they have nothing to exchange except constructing and maintaining the voluntary organization of production.

    This presents us with a logical contradiction. They are forcibly included but necessarily excluded.

    How do we solve this contradiction?

    Par them for services rendered, and do not pay them if they fail to render services.

    Voluntary exchange.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-20 06:40:00 UTC

  • Peace is an idiot’s obsession. The only rational pursuit is the positive express

    Peace is an idiot’s obsession.

    The only rational pursuit is the positive expression in property rights of the negative prohibition on free riding. Violence toward that end is always rational and moral. Peace is an undesirable pursuit, since it simply justifies whatever level of immorality is currently extant.

    People who pursue peace for its own sake are, if necessity, immoralists.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-17 09:56:00 UTC

  • DEMAND FOR THE STATE IS ADMISSION OF UNTRUSTWORTHINESS Really. Not complicated.

    DEMAND FOR THE STATE IS ADMISSION OF UNTRUSTWORTHINESS

    Really. Not complicated. But then, acting trustworthy is expensive. And perhaps we find the state cheaper than acting trustworthy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-16 15:25:00 UTC

  • POLYMORALISM AND COMMONS And of course there are other options: Land can be owne

    POLYMORALISM AND COMMONS

    And of course there are other options: Land can be owned by no one. Land can be owned by one person. Land can be owned by a group of contractual shareholders. Land can be owned by normative shareholders.

    The problem of a commons lies in determining use of a resource that CAN be consumed. However not all resources that are are useful can be consumed tragically. Some resources, and perhaps the most valuable resources are those which we agree NOT to consume. As such, those things we prohibit consumption of. All property consists of prohibitions. Commons consist of universal prohibitions. The tragedy of the commons applies ONLY to unelectable consumption, and the cost of administering unelectable consumption.

    Shareholder agreements universally construct commons, but disallow consumption of those commons except as distributed under the terms of the agreement. So not only can we produce commons by shareholder agreement, nearly all commons are so produced. The problem is not the production of commons, or the constitution of commons or the existence of commons, but that statists license the consumption of commons, and as hoppe has illustrated, distribute the commons (consume it) rather than save it (as did monarchs).

    Parks for example serve as monuments which produce ‘goods’ indefinitely if they are not consumed. We merely need to prevent consumption of the land, in order for the good produced by parks to persist. Of the many kinds of monuments, it is one of the hardest to prevent the consumption of. Because it is the easiest to consume.

    Just as property rights, rule of law, and other norms are expensive monuments to construct, and to persist, without consuming them. And they can be consumed, easily, if we do not prevent their consumption.

    Many norms require high constant costs of observation. Property as an informal institution does. Property rights are merely a legal definition of the norm of property. But the norm of property is produced as are all commons, by requiring a contribution (sacrifice of opportunity) and teh forcible prevention of consumption by that which is not normatively defined.

    This is inescapable since property itself as an institution must be so constructed.

    THE “LIBERTINE” LIBERTARIANS

    The “Libertines” simply try to license unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior by defining away norms. And while some norms may be arbitrary (signals or rituals), those norms that construct and persist commons are not.

    Cosmopolitans just created an elaborate system of pseudo-rationalism to circumvent ethics and morality, in order to justify poly moral in-group-vs out-group morality that renders commons impossible to construct.

    However, the Western competitive advantage over the rest of the world was the trust started by the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, which allowed the aristocracy to form, and which all others in society attempted to imitate not only to obtain status as a reproductive improvement, but because trust did in fact, non-symbolically, but functionally, produce consistently higher returns than non-trust.

    Game. Set. Match. The end of the pseudoscientific century. Libertinism. Cosmopolitanism. Rothbardiansm. Misesianism are just like socialism and neoconservatism, cosmopolitan systems of pseudoscientific propaganda imitating the framing and overloading of abrahamic authoritarianism. Elaborate verbalisms.

    (I have pretty much put a fork in it. Rothbard isn’t just wrong. It’s worse than that.)

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-16 15:17:00 UTC