Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Close to the Final Word On Ethical Systems. (The “Deontological Fallacy” In Ethics)

    —“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

    [I]’d like to give you a different suggestion. That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions. 1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM) 2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies 3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws 4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated). So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically. My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle. So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it. ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs. “SOLID BASE” Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities). The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality. As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal. SEE: INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/ THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/ Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Rothbardians are to the Commons as Socialists are to Production

    [I]’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: NAP/Rothbardian libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production under the false premise that they will continue to produce. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons under the false premise that they will continue to produce commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.*** A condition of Liberty is constructed by the common production of the suppression of parasitism in private, social, political, and out-group human action. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the informational commons such that it is no longer possible to engage in parasitism through deceptive (or erroneous) language. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the government by the demand for strict construction under the one law voluntary transfer, so that it is no longer possible to steal via the government. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the bureaucracy by universal standing in court, and the restoration of rule of law so that all citizens are subject the same prosecution for involuntary transfer. And much more. Rothbardianism is just parasitism. If you want a world without commons try to make one. It isn’t rational that one can exist, and it isn’t empirically demonstrable that one can exist.

  • Rothbardians are to the Commons as Socialists are to Production

    [I]’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: NAP/Rothbardian libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production under the false premise that they will continue to produce. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons under the false premise that they will continue to produce commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.*** A condition of Liberty is constructed by the common production of the suppression of parasitism in private, social, political, and out-group human action. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the informational commons such that it is no longer possible to engage in parasitism through deceptive (or erroneous) language. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the government by the demand for strict construction under the one law voluntary transfer, so that it is no longer possible to steal via the government. Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the bureaucracy by universal standing in court, and the restoration of rule of law so that all citizens are subject the same prosecution for involuntary transfer. And much more. Rothbardianism is just parasitism. If you want a world without commons try to make one. It isn’t rational that one can exist, and it isn’t empirically demonstrable that one can exist.

  • Is Islam Objectively Evil? Why?

    [I]t is not that one fails to comprehend it (accept its fallacies). It is that it is objectively evil in every dimension: One does not judge a product by its advertising but by it's performance. One does not judge a religion by its narrative or claims, but by the status of its adherents. One does not judge a statement by its meaning or justification but by its truth or falsehood. One does not justify antique (primitive) language and reasoning ,in modern (advanced) context. So advocates make at least these four errors – all of which are both false and mere excuses to do what is familiar rather than to do what is true. Islam is the most regressive philosophy on earth – it is even worse than communism. All others are superior. They are superior because the epistemology, social order, and objective of the competitors are superior. The only measure of a philosophy is the economic status of its adherents. The only measure of a business plan is its success in the market. The only measure of a political system is its non-parasitic production of commons. The only measure of your argument is an excuse to persist what amounts to one of the great lies of history that weaponizes ignorance. Islam spreads ignorance in the mind and consequential poverty. Just as communism spread pseudoscience and poverty. Every word you speak it its advocacy defense, or practice is destructive to mankind. This a merely an empirical statement. I can, conversely, construct an internal consistent argument of why islam manufactures ignorance, but this is beyond this conversation. And with both internal consistency and external correspondence, and moral objectivity, we have constructed a scientific argument that objectively demonstrates that islam is everything a devil would wish it to be: the cancer of mankind.

  • Is Islam Objectively Evil? Why?

    [I]t is not that one fails to comprehend it (accept its fallacies). It is that it is objectively evil in every dimension: One does not judge a product by its advertising but by it's performance. One does not judge a religion by its narrative or claims, but by the status of its adherents. One does not judge a statement by its meaning or justification but by its truth or falsehood. One does not justify antique (primitive) language and reasoning ,in modern (advanced) context. So advocates make at least these four errors – all of which are both false and mere excuses to do what is familiar rather than to do what is true. Islam is the most regressive philosophy on earth – it is even worse than communism. All others are superior. They are superior because the epistemology, social order, and objective of the competitors are superior. The only measure of a philosophy is the economic status of its adherents. The only measure of a business plan is its success in the market. The only measure of a political system is its non-parasitic production of commons. The only measure of your argument is an excuse to persist what amounts to one of the great lies of history that weaponizes ignorance. Islam spreads ignorance in the mind and consequential poverty. Just as communism spread pseudoscience and poverty. Every word you speak it its advocacy defense, or practice is destructive to mankind. This a merely an empirical statement. I can, conversely, construct an internal consistent argument of why islam manufactures ignorance, but this is beyond this conversation. And with both internal consistency and external correspondence, and moral objectivity, we have constructed a scientific argument that objectively demonstrates that islam is everything a devil would wish it to be: the cancer of mankind.

  • There is a Reasong for Interpetive Differences in Religion

    [T]he need for interpretation is evidence of the fallacy of a statement.

    —” find it very hard to believe that you will enable you to quickly and accurately interpret the Qu’ran when there appears to be much disagreement even within adherents to the religion”—

    That’s because no amount of study will achieve anything other than self indoctrination and hypnosis into a series of internally inconsistent falsehoods. Truth is non-contradictory. Thats' how we know truth. falsehood is contradictory. That's how we know falsehood. The fact that the koran requires ‘interpretation’ because it is internally consistent, is demonstration of the fact that it is falsehood. This is one of the great ways in which falsehoods are spread. “there is great wisdom here’. Then you have to just assume so many falsehoods but never reach the truth. The reason is that there was never any truth. The entire purpose was to get you to believe a series of falsehoods by the promise of future truth. This is the secret to all religious lies. The promise of eternal life is the same. If you believe all these falsehoods, then you will find immorality. The promise of heaven is the same: if you believe all these falsehoods then you will find heaven. The promise of reward: if you believe all these falsehoods then you will find virgins awaiting you. The lie of the devil to faust and the lie of muhammed to muslims: “I will give you stuff now if you give me something later” (faust). “I will give you something later if you give me something now” (allah). Whereas the entire purpose is to use you as a useful idiot to achieve immoral ends, and never pay you the reward you have been promised, because it does not exist and never did. There are no gods that are not just stories. There are no heavens that are not just false promises. There is no good in islam. The gnostics were right. Jehova was the devil and the Talmud, The Bible, and the Koran are his most successful works. There is only one prophet who does not lie. His name is Aristotle. And the one true god is truth itself.

  • There is a Reasong for Interpetive Differences in Religion

    [T]he need for interpretation is evidence of the fallacy of a statement.

    —” find it very hard to believe that you will enable you to quickly and accurately interpret the Qu’ran when there appears to be much disagreement even within adherents to the religion”—

    That’s because no amount of study will achieve anything other than self indoctrination and hypnosis into a series of internally inconsistent falsehoods. Truth is non-contradictory. Thats' how we know truth. falsehood is contradictory. That's how we know falsehood. The fact that the koran requires ‘interpretation’ because it is internally consistent, is demonstration of the fact that it is falsehood. This is one of the great ways in which falsehoods are spread. “there is great wisdom here’. Then you have to just assume so many falsehoods but never reach the truth. The reason is that there was never any truth. The entire purpose was to get you to believe a series of falsehoods by the promise of future truth. This is the secret to all religious lies. The promise of eternal life is the same. If you believe all these falsehoods, then you will find immorality. The promise of heaven is the same: if you believe all these falsehoods then you will find heaven. The promise of reward: if you believe all these falsehoods then you will find virgins awaiting you. The lie of the devil to faust and the lie of muhammed to muslims: “I will give you stuff now if you give me something later” (faust). “I will give you something later if you give me something now” (allah). Whereas the entire purpose is to use you as a useful idiot to achieve immoral ends, and never pay you the reward you have been promised, because it does not exist and never did. There are no gods that are not just stories. There are no heavens that are not just false promises. There is no good in islam. The gnostics were right. Jehova was the devil and the Talmud, The Bible, and the Koran are his most successful works. There is only one prophet who does not lie. His name is Aristotle. And the one true god is truth itself.

  • ISLAM IS OBJECTIVELY EVIL. WHY? It is not that one fails to comprehend it (accep

    ISLAM IS OBJECTIVELY EVIL. WHY?

    It is not that one fails to comprehend it (accept its fallacies). It is that it is objectively evil in every dimension:

    One does not judge a product by its advertising but by it’s performance.

    One does not judge a religion by its narrative or claims, but by the status of its adherents.

    One does not judge a statement by its meaning or justification but by its truth or falsehood.

    One does not justify antique (primitive) language and reasoning ,in modern (advanced) context.

    So advocates make at least these four errors – all of which are both false and mere excuses to do what is familiar rather than to do what is true.

    Islam is the most regressive philosophy on earth – it is even worse than communism. All others are superior.

    They are superior because the epistemology, social order, and objective of the competitors are superior.

    The only measure of a philosophy is the economic status of its adherents.

    The only measure of a business plan is its success in the market.

    The only measure of a political system is its non-parasitic

    production of commons.

    The only measure of your argument is an excuse to persist what amounts to one of the great lies of history that weaponizes ignorance.

    Islam spreads ignorance in the mind and consequential poverty. Just as communism spread pseudoscience and poverty.

    Every word you speak it its advocacy defense, or practice is destructive to mankind.

    This a merely an empirical statement. I can, conversely, construct an internal consistent argument of why islam manufactures ignorance, but this is beyond this conversation. And with both internal consistency and external correspondence, and moral objectivity, we have

    constructed a scientific argument that objectively demonstrates that islam is everything a devil would wish it to be: the cancer of mankind.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 04:43:00 UTC

  • IP: WHY SHOULD AN AUTHOR HAVE THE RIGHT TO INCOME ON IDEAS AND OPINIONS? Well, I

    IP: WHY SHOULD AN AUTHOR HAVE THE RIGHT TO INCOME ON IDEAS AND OPINIONS?

    Well, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear.

    Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use.

    This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism.

    This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better.

    One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward.

    This is what I object to, and I consider immoral.

    I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 04:33:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARDIANS ARE TO THE COMMONS AS SOCIALISTS ARE TO PRODUCTION ***I’ll simplify

    ROTHBARDIANS ARE TO THE COMMONS AS SOCIALISTS ARE TO PRODUCTION

    ***I’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: NAP/Rothbardian libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production under the false premise that they will continue to produce. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons under the false premise that they will continue to produce commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.***

    A condition of Liberty is constructed by the common production of the suppression of parasitism in private, social, political, and out-group human action.

    Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the informational commons such that it is no longer possible to engage in parasitism through deceptive (or erroneous) language.

    Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the government by the demand for strict construction under the one law voluntary transfer, so that it is no longer possible to steal via the government.

    Propertarianism seeks the incremental suppression of parasitism in the bureaucracy by universal standing in court, and the restoration of rule of law so that all citizens are subject the same prosecution for involuntary transfer.

    And much more.

    Rothbardianism is just parasitism.

    If you want a world without commons try to make one. It isn’t rational that one can exist, and it isn’t empirically demonstrable that one can exist.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:39:00 UTC