Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • VS ROTHBARD: ARISTOCRATIC VERSUS GHETTO ETHICS PROPERTARIANISM AS SOLVING THE PR

    VS ROTHBARD: ARISTOCRATIC VERSUS GHETTO ETHICS

    PROPERTARIANISM AS SOLVING THE PROBLEM OF ETHICS

    The aristocratic egalitarian ethic requires all able men capable of bearing arms, deny access to power, to anyone and everyone. I usually refer to this (erroneously) as the warrior ethic, since it originates with the Indo European warrior caste.

    The ethic of the bazaar or ghetto (incorrectly referred to as the slave ethic), requires only that we fail to engage in trade with those who would seek power. It is a form of ostracization.

    Rothbard returned to his cultural history to develop his ethics when he could not sovle the problem of institutions. And in doing so, he regressed ethics into that same ghetto by ignoring the aristocratic ethical requirements of a) symmetry of knowledge, b) warranty that provides proof of that symmetry of knowledge, and c) a prohibition on external involuntary transfer.

    All three of these ethical constraints are necessary to create the high trust society. Yet they are also insufficient.

    The fourth constraint appears to require d) outbreeding by forbidding cousin-marriage. Outbreeding creates a universalist ethic, which in the west we call ‘christian love’ but which means treating all humans regardless of family origin with the same ethical constraints as you would the members of your immediate family or even tribe.

    This is why libertarianism under Rothbard failed to gain the same level of traction that it has gained under Ron Paul. Ron Paul is promoting Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethics (even if he does not know how to articulate such a thing) while Rothbard was promoting the ethics of the Bazzaar and ghetto (even if he did not understand his actions in this context.)

    Humans are not terribly bright when it comes to rationalism. But we can sense moral patterns and status signals and ‘feel’ positives and negative moral reactions due to those patterns whether or not we can analytically separate and articulate those moral instincts and reactions.

    Propertarianism allows us to articulate these moral instincts as reducible to different concpets of property rights. Propertariansm makes moral differences commensurable.

    If you can grasp that idea, you may eventually understand that Propertarianism is the solution to the problem of the incompleteness of Misesian, Rothbardian praxeology, and explains the causal property of Hoppe’s Argumentation Ethics, rendering it descriptive, not causal. This explanation then, in turn, provides us with the tools to solve the 2500 year old problem of politics that the greeks, and the english, and the americans failed to solve.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-11 07:47:00 UTC

  • Property In Everything: The Source Of Egalitarian Sentiment

    Property In Everything: The Source Of Egalitarian Sentiment http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/12/19/property-in-everything-the-source-of-egalitarian-sentiment/

    Source date (UTC): 2012-12-19 02:54:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/281230914091089920

  • TRUTH AND PROPERTY 1) Property requires we make only true statements in order no

    TRUTH AND PROPERTY

    1) Property requires we make only true statements in order not to create acts of fraud.

    2) The only test of true Statements is warranty.

    3) The only means of issuing warranty is upon informational symmetry.

    Human beings detest involuntary transfers. Any definition of property that permits involuntary transfer is an attempt to sanction theft by fraud. And therefore any definition of property that does not include warranty and symmetry is in fact, an act of fraud.

    Property( Warranty( Symmetry)) = TRUTH.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-12-19 02:31:00 UTC

  • Natural Law Is An Attempt By The Weak Church To Obscure The Fact That The Source Of Property Is Violence.

    [W]e are each born with a capacity for violence. Some more. Some less. During our lives we develop that capacity. Some more some less. Prior to the institution of property, this violence is one of our forms of wealth. We trade our wealth of violence in exchange for the institution of property. If our property is taken from us then we no longer need exchange our wealth in violence for it. And we may now use our wealth of violence for other purposes. We pay for property with our wealth in violence. The source of all property is violence. Natural law is a convenient construct of the church in order to obscure the inconvenient truth that the source of property is the application of violence. Understood correctly, this means that natural law is an attempt at redistribution: to obtain the expensive right of property at a dramatic discount. As such. Arguments to natural law are acts of fraud. The source of property is violence. – Curt Doolittle ( libertarians have fun trying to get out of that box. ).

  • PROPERTY, IN ALL ITS FORMS RENDERS ALL HUMAN ACTION MORALLY COMMENSURABLE. While

    PROPERTY, IN ALL ITS FORMS RENDERS ALL HUMAN ACTION MORALLY COMMENSURABLE.

    While PREFERENCES and SUBJECTIVE VALUE are not commensurable, that does not mean that moral actions in favor of, or against, NORMS are cannot be commensurable.

    Norms are a market. They are, perhaps, our first market. And our commercial market exists, as an analogistic response to it. This is somewhat supportable by comparing the normative economies, political economies, and commercial economies of different civilizations.

    If I can distill the significance of propertarianism down to something I can communicate this simply, then it will serve a function that we have been searching for, since the invention of politics.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-15 13:01:00 UTC

  • ETHICS : PRAXEOLOGY AND THE EQUILIBRIA OF VOLUNTARY TRANSFER COMPENSATE FOR LACK

    ETHICS : PRAXEOLOGY AND THE EQUILIBRIA OF VOLUNTARY TRANSFER COMPENSATE FOR LACK OF CARDINALITY IN SUBJECTIVITY

    The structural problem with the discipline of ethics, and perhaps philosophy in general, which is understandable given its period of origin, is not so much it’s lack of measurement – which given the ordinal nature of preferences is irrelevant – but it’s lack of equilibrial concepts with which to compensate for lack of measurement – even if it does account for externalities, albiet differently in european, asian and magian frameworks. This absence manifests itself in ideal types, general rules, and attempts at statements of perfection. When in fact, the ‘golden mean’, which Aristotle gave us, teaches us to consider ideas on a spectrum. Ideas with optimums can be compared with each other. Furthermore, voluntary and involuntary transfers – which are the source of all human cooperative behavior – can be used to inform us about whether our optimums will be demonstrably true, or ideological falsehoods.

    Ethics without praxeology is idealism, not analysis. Ethics without equilibrial forces of property, voluntarily transferred, is simply deception.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-11-04 06:55:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.propertarians.com/what-is-propertarianism/PROPERTARIANISM

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-02 22:59:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM allows us to discourse on what people from different political b

    PROPERTARIANISM allows us to discourse on what people from different political biases ‘believe’ in rational terms that are commensurable.

    Thats something very special in the history of thought.

    Source date (UTC): 2012-10-02 10:01:00 UTC

  • What Are “positive Rights”?

    I’ve been asked to comment on this topic.   I don’t think I can add much to what has been said here. But I will try to add some precision:

    A right is a thing that all people can grant to each other. Otherwise the term has no meaning.  We cannot grant each other positives. We lack the resources to grant resources to others.  We can however, equally forgo opportunities for satisfying our self interest.  In effect, we can all suffer deprivations of opportunity even if we cannot suffer the transfer of resources (money).

    But for clarity: We cannot make laws either.  Laws emerge.  We can only issue orders.  We grant orders legitimacy by calling them analogies to laws. Legislatures issue orders.  Laws emerge from observation of human actions. We cannot make laws, only recognize them.

    Likewise, we cannot make positive rights.  We can only make redistributive commitments – forcible transfer from one group to another.  We grant these goals legitimacy by calling them analogies to rights.

    But neither commands nor redistributions are what they claim to be by analogy.  They are what they are, and can be nothing else: commands and thefts.

    The rest is just gilding a sin in flowery language.

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-positive-rights

  • Question: From the GSH perspective, does a woman have the right to bear a child

    Question: From the GSH perspective, does a woman have the right to bear a child that she cannot support, thus mandating transfers, and sacrifices, from others to her? The reason I ask is that while protestant christianity certainly contains content that is absurd, the effect of its “chinese room” (see Searle) is a prohibition on involuntary transfers, and a requirement for responsible independence. Democratic Secular Humanism appears rational, but encourages involuntary transfers. Christianity implies inequality is natural. DSH advocates (at least statistically) believe that humans are equal. So, there is madness on both sides. Or, would you suggest DSH as a political movement is separate from GSH as a personal philosophical movement?

    Source date (UTC): 2012-07-04 09:01:00 UTC