Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • TRUTH TELLING American culture, like english culture, was organized to enforce t

    TRUTH TELLING

    American culture, like english culture, was organized to enforce truth telling, truth telling alone will enforce private property rights. The goal of the Progressive (socialist) Intellectuals (new yorkers) was to assault the culture of truth telling, as provincial, since it imposed a threat to their evolutionary strategy.

    We focus on property rights encoded in law, such that we defend ourselves from the state. But Truth Telling if it is the law that prevents violence, alone prevents involuntary transfer, by outlawing the means of involuntary transfer – whereas Intersubjectively verifiable property rights and relativism allow for the perpetuation of multiculturalism (lying and stealing).

    In other words, it is not property rights but truth telling that forms the basis of moral society that depends upon property rights.

    Enforcement of IVP property rights is insufficient for the formation of a polity that respects property rights. Instead, such a polity must enforce truth telling, expressed as property rights.

    (Damn. I didn’t expect to come to that conclusion.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-23 04:22:00 UTC

  • Truth Telling Forms The Basis Of A Moral Society That Depends Upon Property Rights

    [A]merican culture, like english culture, was organized to enforce truth telling, truth telling alone will enforce private property rights. The goal of the Progressive (socialist) Intellectuals (new yorkers) was to assault the culture of truth telling, as provincial, since it imposed a threat to their evolutionary strategy. We focus on property rights encoded in law, such that we defend ourselves from the state. But Truth Telling if it is the law that prevents violence, alone prevents involuntary transfer, by outlawing the means of involuntary transfer – whereas Intersubjectively verifiable property rights and relativism allow for the perpetuation of multiculturalism (lying and stealing). In other words, it is not property rights but truth telling that forms the basis of moral society that depends upon property rights. Enforcement of IVP property rights is insufficient for the formation of a polity that respects property rights. Instead, such a polity must enforce truth telling, expressed as property rights. (Damn. I didn’t expect to come to that conclusion.)

  • Truth Telling Forms The Basis Of A Moral Society That Depends Upon Property Rights

    [A]merican culture, like english culture, was organized to enforce truth telling, truth telling alone will enforce private property rights. The goal of the Progressive (socialist) Intellectuals (new yorkers) was to assault the culture of truth telling, as provincial, since it imposed a threat to their evolutionary strategy. We focus on property rights encoded in law, such that we defend ourselves from the state. But Truth Telling if it is the law that prevents violence, alone prevents involuntary transfer, by outlawing the means of involuntary transfer – whereas Intersubjectively verifiable property rights and relativism allow for the perpetuation of multiculturalism (lying and stealing). In other words, it is not property rights but truth telling that forms the basis of moral society that depends upon property rights. Enforcement of IVP property rights is insufficient for the formation of a polity that respects property rights. Instead, such a polity must enforce truth telling, expressed as property rights. (Damn. I didn’t expect to come to that conclusion.)

  • Reading a piece by Block, and exasperated at the amount of verbal justification

    Reading a piece by Block, and exasperated at the amount of verbal justification as a means of producing overloading (deception).

    Let me help you folks: The first rule of cooperation is “why don’t I just kill you and take your stuff?” Now a weakling might not like that, and a coward might not like that, and a free rider might not like that, but that’s simply a fact. It abuses northern european universalism, which is easily susceptible to overloading and suggestion that implies a breach of the universalist’s assumed trust.

    But that is a mere cultural assumption that can be abused by ghetto pragmatism. Instead, we always have the ability to kill and take your stuff. Why wouldn’t we? Mostly because its either too rewarding to engage in trade, or not worth killing you and taking your stuff.

    Verbal contradiction doesn’t hold any weight when the choice is between whether to kill you or to trade with you. Negotiation is not bound by logic. It’s bound by not doing what the other person will kill you for.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-18 15:04:00 UTC

  • Property rights defined by aggression are necessary and sufficient for limiting

    Property rights defined by aggression are necessary and sufficient for limiting the state, sure. But they aren’t necessary and sufficient for limiting each other in a voluntary polity.

    If you want a voluntary polity in the absence of a state then you must provide a means of resolving all conflicts with each other.

    We don’t have the privilege of determining what causes conflict – evolution mandated it: we can cooperate if and only if we cannot parasite or prey on each other by doing so. Otherwise evolution will punish us for it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-16 15:28:00 UTC

  • **WHAT** PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR A PEACEFUL CIVILIZATION? —The foun

    **WHAT** PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE SUFFICIENT FOR A PEACEFUL CIVILIZATION?

    —The foundation of a peaceful and prosperous civilization is “property rights are human rights and human rights are property rights.”— Bruce Koerber, Auburn University

    Bruce,

    While TRUE, in the sense that our laws and courts must resolve differences by property rights for us to live in a state of LEGAL LIBERTY, it is not true that property rights are the foundation of a peaceful and prosperous civilization, by any means, unless one enumerates all categories and cases of property, and provides for a means of their evolutionary expansion.

    Property defined as that which is Intersubjectively Verifiable (as I have written about profusely) is absolutely, positively, insufficient for the formation of a peaceful polity, and even less so for a civilization, because it offers an insufficient suppression of unethical and immoral actions to prevent conflict, and therefore for demand for an authoritarian state.

    Property must extended to the ethical and moral, which rothbardian ethics of the ghetto’s low trust society do not.

    Primitive societies did not lack internal property rights any more than today’s primitive families lack internal property rights. The problem is extending the treatment we grant to others within the family across family, tribal, cultural, and racial bounds.

    The libertarian fallacy is the presumption of the benevolence of human nature across familial, tribal, cultural, commercial bounds, which is contrary to all evidence from all civilizations, and all cultures at all points in time.

    No people, lacking an authoritarian martial government can defend itself from parasitic conquest without

    Rothbard took his ethics from the Medieval ghetto and like a good Cosmopolitan tried to justify the ethics of the ghetto just as germans the ethics of the land, and the english the ethics of the island. But while german ethics of the land, require nothing external to the polity but neighbors with different norms, the english ethics of the island require a sea to protect them, and the jewish ethic of the ghetto requires an authoritarian overlord to create a fictitious environment in which violence is not permitted but unethical and immoral behavior is tolerated as long as it does not lead to violence.

    Humans require manners, ethics, morals, AND property rights to cooperate. Otherwise conflict or authoritarianism is preferable to the high transaction costs of trying to cooperate.

    The germans were right albeit in the pseudoscientific authoritarian and rational language of Kant, and the anglos were right in their empirical and psychological language, yes, but wrong in that they assumed all men wished to, or were capable of, joining the aristocracy and incurring its responsibility.

    But rothbard was the most wrong of all – in not only his language, but in his methods, logic and assumptions of man. Meaning that rothbard joins Spinoza, Marx, Freud, Cantor and even to some degree Popper, as manufacturer of elaborate verbal pseudosciences – the thinkers that doomed the 20th century to an age of pseudosciences, and destroyed the aristocratic libertarian ethos of western civilization.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev,Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-14 01:27:00 UTC

  • “The percentage of time devoted in contribution to the production of the commons

    —“The percentage of time devoted in contribution to the production of the commons shall be equal to the percentage of income provided to the commons by results of trade. This places reciprocal limits on the producers of goods within the voluntary organization of production, and the producers of the commons that enable the voluntary organization of production.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-12 04:50:00 UTC

  • UPDATE ON PROPERTARIAN ETHICS “Proof and Calculability” = Ethical Truth in Polit

    UPDATE ON PROPERTARIAN ETHICS

    “Proof and Calculability” = Ethical Truth in Politics

    I got stuck while writing Propertarianism in 2010 on the ethical requirement that at that time I called “Calculability”. I knew it was needed in any contractual government to prevent externalizing costs – if not outright acts of abuse and fraud.

    For all intents and purposes, I was forcing contractual and monetary (numeric) constraints into political ethics. But I knew something was ‘wrong’ in verbal constructions as well. Even if strict construction and original intent were known issues, how could I prevent fallacious argument in politics (lying)?

    And I just couldn’t get my arms around it. And it’s taken me really, what, three and a half years to solve it with Operationalism? So, instead of one ethical addition called ‘calculability’ which we need to keep, I need to add Operationalism as well (ie: ‘Proof”). I suppose I could work the language a bit and demonstrate that they’re in fact, the same principle applied to calculable and argumentative problems but I think that would only complicate matters. So I’ll keep them separate and overlapping (which is a theme I keep finding myself using.)

    So Truth(Testimony) Operationalism(Proof), and Calculability(testability of contract) are the additional properties of political ethics I’ve added to to propertarianism. I am not sure but I think that’s the hardest problem I had to solve in this entire program so far.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-11 06:26:00 UTC

  • Manufacturing Liberty

    (Guest Post by Eli Harman: ) [A]sking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation (if they’re strong) is asking them to bear a substantial opportunity cost. They will only do so if someone stands ready to impose a higher actual cost for choosing to engage in them. This is what Curt Doolittle means when he says “liberty must be manufactured by violence.” Libertarians love to sing liberty’s praises, and there is much to be said in its favor. But it does not follow from this that liberty is always in everyone’s best interests. There are many people who stand to lose more from liberty than they would stand to gain. (And not just because they misperceive the situation.) There are still more people for whom the uncertainty over what they would stand to gain or lose would make desiring liberty irrational. The incentives that favor liberty do not exist by default, they must be proactively created. And in order for this to happen there must be people likely to benefit from liberty, strong people, capable people, wise people, intelligent people, responsible people, farsighted people; in short, aristocrats. And they must organize to impose liberty on the remainder by force, and in many cases, to their detriment, or to their enduring resentment. If liberty is thus to be manufactured, the problem of free-riding must also be overcome by institutional forms that deny the benefits of liberty to those unwilling to participate in its manufacture, and that preserves the benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of those so willing.

  • Manufacturing Liberty

    (Guest Post by Eli Harman: ) [A]sking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation (if they’re strong) is asking them to bear a substantial opportunity cost. They will only do so if someone stands ready to impose a higher actual cost for choosing to engage in them. This is what Curt Doolittle means when he says “liberty must be manufactured by violence.” Libertarians love to sing liberty’s praises, and there is much to be said in its favor. But it does not follow from this that liberty is always in everyone’s best interests. There are many people who stand to lose more from liberty than they would stand to gain. (And not just because they misperceive the situation.) There are still more people for whom the uncertainty over what they would stand to gain or lose would make desiring liberty irrational. The incentives that favor liberty do not exist by default, they must be proactively created. And in order for this to happen there must be people likely to benefit from liberty, strong people, capable people, wise people, intelligent people, responsible people, farsighted people; in short, aristocrats. And they must organize to impose liberty on the remainder by force, and in many cases, to their detriment, or to their enduring resentment. If liberty is thus to be manufactured, the problem of free-riding must also be overcome by institutional forms that deny the benefits of liberty to those unwilling to participate in its manufacture, and that preserves the benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of those so willing.