Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Q&A: DOOLITTLE: CAN TWO SETS OF MORALS BE “RIGHT”? (from reddit) USER STRAY ASKS

    Q&A: DOOLITTLE: CAN TWO SETS OF MORALS BE “RIGHT”?

    (from reddit)

    USER STRAY ASKS

    —“So is it possible for two distinct sets of morals to be “right”?—

    USER CHUCK REPLIES

    —“Well according to Curt, probably no, because he says that morality is absolute. But (and this is probably what you mean) two distinct strategies (to use his language) could both be “right”, i.e. “moral”. However one might be more “moral” than the other, depending on its ability to promote the end. For example. As such, we can measure whether some cultures are more moral than others, by measuring the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding) that is suppressed by law and norm. Ultimately I could be wrong about all of this. It would be best for someone who knows Curt’s work better to explain it, perhaps even Curt himself.”—

    CURT REPLIES

    I think you’ve done a great job really. I can add minor clarity.

    1) We may prefer different ends, but we can still cooperate voluntarily upon means. Then we discover at the conclusion which was right or not. This is the secret of the market. My work on politics is to create a market for commons (goods that cannot be privatized) rather than the monopoly means of production of commons we have under democracy. This lets us produce commons that compete if we want, but cooperate on their production. (In Seattle the train vs monorail debate was nonsense: do both.)

    2) our individual and group strategies may consist of a combination of objectively moral and immoral preferences. within group these differences are resolvable by contractual means. Across group they are resolvable by objective means.

    3) if we are not engaging in cooperation then morality has no meaning, since morality is merely the necessity of preservation of cooperation. In other words, when we resort to preying upon one another we have abandoned morality. In practice humans rarely do this. We actually engage in punishment in an attempt to restore cooperation.

    Mobs are scary things. Outliers are scary things. That is why we kill off people that make us nervous in group and out-group.

    That’s why ancapism never works. The only people for whom it is rational to join such a polity over another with greater legal coverage has historically been slavery, piracy, black marketing, or some financial equivalent. And the reason these groups dont’ exist is because we exterminate them as parasites.

    Its the same reason we punish animal cruelty. “People who do that kind of thing are f—ing dangerous to us. That kid who mows over a kitten is destined to be a serial killer.” etc. The ancap is destined to engage in parasitism. Why? well, why else would he choose a low trust legal code over a high trust legal code?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv Ukraine)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 10:25:00 UTC

  • Why Do We Want Non-Imposition of Costs Against Demonstrated Property?

    [B]ecause in the libertine vision of man, we just ‘move on’ after we have been imposed upon by some sort of cheating. But this is not true. The strong prefer, and enjoy conquest, enslavement, rape, pillaging. It eliminates competitors quickly and permanently. So cooperation must be preferable to conquest. Why shouldn’t I kill a rothbardian and take his stuff rather than allow myself to be subject to low trust, low economic velocity, high transaction costs, constant parasitism, and feeding and funding of competitors? The answer is that I prefer rapid killing, raping and taking to slow parasitic conquest. Westerners take the christian ethic beyond its limits. All theories have limits. That is why there are no certain premises. Forgiving error and buying cooperation by forgiving a parasitism, is not the same as feeding parasites who them compete with and conquer you. Conquest is evidence of the failure of genes and ideas. CHRISTIAN LOVE IS A ‘PUT’: A SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT NOT A UNIVERSAL GOOD.

  • Why Do We Want Non-Imposition of Costs Against Demonstrated Property?

    [B]ecause in the libertine vision of man, we just ‘move on’ after we have been imposed upon by some sort of cheating. But this is not true. The strong prefer, and enjoy conquest, enslavement, rape, pillaging. It eliminates competitors quickly and permanently. So cooperation must be preferable to conquest. Why shouldn’t I kill a rothbardian and take his stuff rather than allow myself to be subject to low trust, low economic velocity, high transaction costs, constant parasitism, and feeding and funding of competitors? The answer is that I prefer rapid killing, raping and taking to slow parasitic conquest. Westerners take the christian ethic beyond its limits. All theories have limits. That is why there are no certain premises. Forgiving error and buying cooperation by forgiving a parasitism, is not the same as feeding parasites who them compete with and conquer you. Conquest is evidence of the failure of genes and ideas. CHRISTIAN LOVE IS A ‘PUT’: A SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT NOT A UNIVERSAL GOOD.

  • The Rothbardian Fallacy of Race

    –“race is a lousy proxy for violence”– [T]his is empirically false in every walk of life. The reason being that the different tribes within each race have been asymmetrically successful in genetic pacification, with westerners the most successful, followed by the Japanese and Chinese. So empirically race IS an empirical signal of criminality. (Hence “The Talk”.)

    In criminality – roughly speaking impulsivity and aggression and IQ determine potential criminality, although with increases in IQ, the impulsive and the aggressive merely change tactics from physical, to deceitful, to conspiratorial. In the market for goods and services all people are the color of money – although different populations are of higher risk and cost than others because of genetic pacification. In politics people act as competing and hostile blocks each seeking higher status and privilege. This is a universally demonstrable practice since status signaling and self perception of status is the innate accounting system of mankind. So in the market for goods and services, it is irrational to treat an individual by the properties of his class or race , and conversely it is rational in politics and social science to treat a class or race by the properties of its individuals. Because individuals act as blocks in politics. That’s the domain of politics. Just as individuals act as individuals in the market. That is the domain of the market. Rothbardian Libertarianism is an excuse for taking discounts, just as socialism is an excuse for involuntary transfer and dysgenic reproduction. Just as neo-conservatism is an excuse for forcing costs of expansion and conquest upon others. There are no free rides. The only liberty possible is constructed by reciprocal insurance against parasitism by the promise of organized violence to suppress it, thereby forcing all humans into the market for production distribution and trade, and forcing all humans to save for their unproductive years. **Liberty: Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. Every man a warrior. This is the only know means of constructing liberty.** NO MORE LIES. THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Rothbardian Fallacy of Race

    –“race is a lousy proxy for violence”– [T]his is empirically false in every walk of life. The reason being that the different tribes within each race have been asymmetrically successful in genetic pacification, with westerners the most successful, followed by the Japanese and Chinese. So empirically race IS an empirical signal of criminality. (Hence “The Talk”.)

    In criminality – roughly speaking impulsivity and aggression and IQ determine potential criminality, although with increases in IQ, the impulsive and the aggressive merely change tactics from physical, to deceitful, to conspiratorial. In the market for goods and services all people are the color of money – although different populations are of higher risk and cost than others because of genetic pacification. In politics people act as competing and hostile blocks each seeking higher status and privilege. This is a universally demonstrable practice since status signaling and self perception of status is the innate accounting system of mankind. So in the market for goods and services, it is irrational to treat an individual by the properties of his class or race , and conversely it is rational in politics and social science to treat a class or race by the properties of its individuals. Because individuals act as blocks in politics. That’s the domain of politics. Just as individuals act as individuals in the market. That is the domain of the market. Rothbardian Libertarianism is an excuse for taking discounts, just as socialism is an excuse for involuntary transfer and dysgenic reproduction. Just as neo-conservatism is an excuse for forcing costs of expansion and conquest upon others. There are no free rides. The only liberty possible is constructed by reciprocal insurance against parasitism by the promise of organized violence to suppress it, thereby forcing all humans into the market for production distribution and trade, and forcing all humans to save for their unproductive years. **Liberty: Every man a craftsman. Every man a merchant. Every man an investor. Every man a sheriff. Every man a Judge. Every man a Legislator. Every man a warrior. This is the only know means of constructing liberty.** NO MORE LIES. THE TRUTH IS ENOUGH. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Libertarianism is Reducible to Nomocratic Prohibition on Parasitism for the Purpose of Preserving the Rewards of Cooperation

    LIBERTARIANISM IS REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS…OR ISNT IT? http://angrybearblog.com/2015/08/libertarianism-simplified-the-three-proper-powers-of-government.html [R]ule of Law (universal application, universal standing), Common Law (organic), Property en Toto (right to seek restitution for any imposition upon anything constructed by the bearing of costs: that which is obtained by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality of the same criteria. The challenge for libertarians has been the definition of private property: that which one can seek restitution for in court under rule of law. Saying we defend it without defining it is an incomplete statement that allows the audience to assume his concept of private property is what the speaker refers to. This is a cute act of suggestion that inspires moral affiliation, but it is not sufficient for representation as the basis for law that provides non discretionary decidability in matters of conflict. Rothbardians define property with the ethics of pastoralists and the ghetto: inter subjectively verifiable property. These are the low trust ethics of the steppe, levant, and medieval ghetto. If we look at high trust societies instead, they assert property rights not only to physical property, but to all property that causes conflict and retaliation for the imposition of costs. So humans demonstrate that they treat as their property all that they have expended resources to obtain with the expectation of a monopoly of control(private), fruits from(shareholder property), and prevention from consumption (commons). We agree to enforce retaliation or restitution against impositions against all of those forms of property. But why? Because the most scarce and rewarding good is cooperation. We evolve moral intuitions, moral and ethical rules, manners, laws and traditions to preserve the value of cooperation. Property rights then represent a warranty by the group members of those forms of property that one has acquired or invested in or refrained from the consumption of, in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate and the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, including the rewards from the production of commons- property rights being the first commons. The origin of property preceded cooperation. The origin of morality followed cooperation. The origin of rights evolved from morality. Law evolved from the need for uniform application of restitution for impositions upon property. Property rights did not evolve from the scarcity of goods but from the gradual atomization of the family in the increasingly individualistic division of labor. So while libertarianism contains comforting memes, it is predicated on a number of half truths and falsehoods. The problem we face is the preservation of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation. Property rights – insuring one another – are the means by which we do so. As such, the scope of property necessary for an anarchic polity is that which preserves the will to cooperate. And as far as we know, that is a high trust requirement. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian institute Kiev, Ukraine. Libertarianism is reducible to rule of law under the total prohibition against the imposition of costs against that property necessary to preserve the incentives to cooperate.

  • Libertarianism is Reducible to Nomocratic Prohibition on Parasitism for the Purpose of Preserving the Rewards of Cooperation

    LIBERTARIANISM IS REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS…OR ISNT IT? http://angrybearblog.com/2015/08/libertarianism-simplified-the-three-proper-powers-of-government.html [R]ule of Law (universal application, universal standing), Common Law (organic), Property en Toto (right to seek restitution for any imposition upon anything constructed by the bearing of costs: that which is obtained by productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externality of the same criteria. The challenge for libertarians has been the definition of private property: that which one can seek restitution for in court under rule of law. Saying we defend it without defining it is an incomplete statement that allows the audience to assume his concept of private property is what the speaker refers to. This is a cute act of suggestion that inspires moral affiliation, but it is not sufficient for representation as the basis for law that provides non discretionary decidability in matters of conflict. Rothbardians define property with the ethics of pastoralists and the ghetto: inter subjectively verifiable property. These are the low trust ethics of the steppe, levant, and medieval ghetto. If we look at high trust societies instead, they assert property rights not only to physical property, but to all property that causes conflict and retaliation for the imposition of costs. So humans demonstrate that they treat as their property all that they have expended resources to obtain with the expectation of a monopoly of control(private), fruits from(shareholder property), and prevention from consumption (commons). We agree to enforce retaliation or restitution against impositions against all of those forms of property. But why? Because the most scarce and rewarding good is cooperation. We evolve moral intuitions, moral and ethical rules, manners, laws and traditions to preserve the value of cooperation. Property rights then represent a warranty by the group members of those forms of property that one has acquired or invested in or refrained from the consumption of, in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate and the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, including the rewards from the production of commons- property rights being the first commons. The origin of property preceded cooperation. The origin of morality followed cooperation. The origin of rights evolved from morality. Law evolved from the need for uniform application of restitution for impositions upon property. Property rights did not evolve from the scarcity of goods but from the gradual atomization of the family in the increasingly individualistic division of labor. So while libertarianism contains comforting memes, it is predicated on a number of half truths and falsehoods. The problem we face is the preservation of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation. Property rights – insuring one another – are the means by which we do so. As such, the scope of property necessary for an anarchic polity is that which preserves the will to cooperate. And as far as we know, that is a high trust requirement. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian institute Kiev, Ukraine. Libertarianism is reducible to rule of law under the total prohibition against the imposition of costs against that property necessary to preserve the incentives to cooperate.

  • HUMANITARIANISM VS ETHNOCENTRISM VS FREE RIDERS —“Ethnocentrism beats humanita

    HUMANITARIANISM VS ETHNOCENTRISM VS FREE RIDERS

    —“Ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because ethnocentrics do a better job at suppressing selfish free riders.

    If an ethnocentric group comes across a group riddled with selfish individuals, they’ll refuse to cooperate. Over time, thanks to the ethnos’ mutual cooperation and the selfish group’s total refusal to even help themselves out, ethnos will reproduce faster than the non-cooperators and thus expand at the selfish group’s expense.

    Meanwhile those nice humanitarian fellows blissfully waste their precious reproductive potential helping out free riders, who are all to happy to receive their favor, giving nothing in return. We call this idea, that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism because it is better at suppressing free-riders, the “mediation hypothesis,” and it is the mechanism favored by Hammond and Axelrod in their original paper.

    Another possibility is that ethnocentrism beats humanitarianism outright. Imagine an ethno group next to a humanitarian group. Individuals on the group boundary benefit from the cooperation of their own group-mates behind them. But the ethnocentrics at the front doubly benefit from the cooperation of those hapless humanitarians. Might this give the ethnos the edge they need? We call this the “direct hypothesis”.—-

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-16 06:55:00 UTC

  • WHY DO WE WANT NON-IMPOSITION OF COSTS AGAINST DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY AS A MEANS

    WHY DO WE WANT NON-IMPOSITION OF COSTS AGAINST DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY AS A MEANS OF PRESERVING COOPERATION?

    Because in the libertine vision of man, we just ‘move on’ after we have been imposed upon by some sort of cheating. But this is not true. The strong prefer, and enjoy conquest, enslavement, rape, pillaging. It eliminates competitors quickly and permanently. So cooperation must be preferable to conquest.

    Why shouldn’t I kill a rothbardian and take his stuff rather than allow myself to be subject to low trust, low economic velocity, high transaction costs, constant parasitism, and feeding and funding of competitors?

    The answer is that I prefer rapid killing, raping and taking to slow parasitic conquest.

    Westerners take the christian ethic beyond its limits. All theories have limits. That is why there are no certain premises. Forgiving error and buying cooperation by forgiving a parasitism, is not the same as feeding parasites who them compete with and conquer you.

    Conquest is evidence of the failure of genes and ideas.

    CHRISTIAN LOVE IS A ‘PUT’: A SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT NOT A UNIVERSAL GOOD.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-15 05:57:00 UTC

  • OVERTURNING NAP WITH NAP/IVP AND NAP/DP NAP does not make a legal framework btw.

    OVERTURNING NAP WITH NAP/IVP AND NAP/DP

    NAP does not make a legal framework btw. And pretty much all libertarian authors have stated so.

    Rothbardian Low trust (Ghetto) Ethics: Non aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property. (permits blackmail etc), does not preserve the incentive for cooperation.

    Aristocratic High trust (warrior) Ethics: Non aggression against property-en-toto, for the total preservation of cooperation.

    NAP/IVP (Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics) are insufficient incentive for the establishment or maintenance of a voluntary polity since the transaction costs alone are sufficient to drive demand for authoritarianism as a means of suppressing retaliation.

    NAP/Property-en-toto (Aristocratic Warrior Ethics) provide sufficient incentive to eliminate demand for authority since the scope of law is sufficient to provide a means of dispute resolution (retaliation) regardless of method or scope.

    The problem we face in constructing a voluntary polity is that the law must provide sufficient suppression of parasitism (aggression against that which others have expended resources to obtain) such that there is no incentive to demand the state as a means of dispute resolution.

    Rothbard’s NAP/IVP is an insufficient basis for law and cannot produce an anarchic polity(civil society), while AHT/PT is a sufficient basis for law and can produce an anarchic polity (civil society).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-15 01:13:00 UTC