Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Laws Prohibit Involuntary Transfer. Contracts Exchange Rights.

    [I]n writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized. Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.

    Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate. But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).

  • Laws Prohibit Involuntary Transfer. Contracts Exchange Rights.

    [I]n writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized. Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.

    Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate. But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).

  • Propertarian Arguments are Categorically Proofs.  (And a note on painful births 🙂 )

    [A] proof is a test of internal consistency. A proof is not a truth proposition. It is merely a statement of existential possibility: that by (a)the given axioms, or (b)the possible operations, and (c) the tests of subjective incentive at each opportunity for choice, that the given argument is possible. Testimonialism and Propertarianism extend Critical Rationalism fully to all known areas of thought. Testimonialism completes critical rationalism. [M]oreover, the profundity of the first paragraph is something that you probably cannot find in university philosophy departments. As far as I know, Testimonialism is a completely novel invention. And you and I are participating in the growth of something very new. Something that failed in the early 20th century, and by that failure nearly wiped out western civilization. If you learn propertarianism and testimonialism you will learn to construct proofs. And you will win arguments against the liars. The fact that I am constructing proofs, rather than asking you to accept authority or wisdom or moral appeal, is why I have such an absurdly off-kilter behavior when doing philosophy. Because I’m just taking an argument and seeing if I can construct a proof for it – just like a mathematician tries to construct a proof, and just like a computer programmers is trying to figure out if something is computable. I don’t have to act like a member of the Academy (Cathedral) because I am not lying or asking you to believe I hold moral authority. I’m a just constructing proofs. And at least proofs are truthful (warrantied testimony) even if they may not be true (complete). So Propertarianism is how we are going to win. We are going to win because when I am done it will be possible to construct moral proofs. Once we can construct moral proofs, we can create strict construction in law.  And we can convert all commons to property.  And under universal standing, protect that property. And we will eliminate lying the same way we created property and eliminated violence and theft. And the same way we created contracts and law, and eliminated fraud.  And the same way we created science and eliminated mysticism.  We will create testimonialism and eliminate rationalism, justification, equivocation, obscurantism, pseudoscience, lying, and propaganda. Fukuyama was wrong. The end of history is the truthful civilization. And we are going to birth it. And I hope that birth is painful.  🙂

  • Q: “What is Your Position on Slavery?”

    Well, I suppose I have to be impolitic here and just go with the truth.  But let me prevaricate a little bit and remind all that my job is to make amoral (non moral, non-introspective) arguments.  So I am not going to satisfy your moral intuition’s needs for confirmation in this essay.SLAVERY? [C]ooperation between relative equals is so disproportionately rewarding that it is difficult not to make use of it. Cooperation is not universally valuable, even if possible, because at some point the differences between the parties mean that there is nothing of value that they can exchange (the degree to which this is pervasive in the world is why we end up with classes and castes.) ( Cooperation is not universally possible because if there is a marginal difference in suppression of free riding (parasitism) then agreements that yield productive results are not possible. (Russia/Iran) Cooperation is not possible if the others are not capable of cooperating (Pygmys). Cooperation is sometimes undesirable if cooperation may lead to one’s eventual extermination. (this happens even if you will eventually be out-competed by what appears to be mutually beneficial cooperation.) (american indians) Cooperation is not possible if the other party is intent on your displacement, conquest, conversion, out-breeding, or extermination. (Palestinians) Paternalism (managed evolution / colonialism / rule) of those who are either not valuable to cooperate with, or not possible to cooperate with, or deadly to cooperate with can possibly provide returns if you can afford to produce them. Paternalism (managed evolution / colonialism / rule) is only preferable if in the long term, you do sufficient good and insufficient harm, that the population, once evolved, will not harm you, and will persist in trading with you, and you will obtain long term rewards from that cooperation. (India) If Paternalism (managed evolution) is not possible because the others are not capable of cooperation, or you cannot afford to evolve them, and you can ignore them, then ignoring them is the cheapest solution. If you cannot ignore them, cannot evolve them, and cannot cooperate with them, then you can conquer or exterminate them. If you cannot afford to conquer or exterminate them, then they will defeat you. Therefore; – We can exterminate those who threaten us. – We can resist conquerors and superior competitors. – We can trade with peers. – We can evolve non-peers. – We can protect (treat as pets) the non threatening. – We can ignore those who are irrelevant. The problem with slavery is that it’s very expensive to police sentient creatures whose dominance hierarchy we cannot assume leadership of. Any potential slave is of better utility in the voluntary organization of production (the market) than he is in the involuntary organization of production. It’s fairly expensive to take care of pets. (Pygmys, Primitives). But the alternative is to lose all future potential from them, and often, lose the value that they bring to existence. (Giraffe’s and Elephants). It’s fine to make pets from non-sentients as long as we don’t cause them to suffer – even if they would prefer to be independent, sometimes the alternative to being a pet is extinction (tigers). It is very hard to imagine non-threatening sentients that we cannot ignore. [S]o in this list I cannot see the wisdom of involuntary slavery, unless somehow we make the case the slavery is a less expensive alternative to extermination. (And that, I think, is a hard argument to make. Bullets are cheap after all.) Now if we were to return to agrarian poverty in the next thousand years, the economics of slavery MIGHT invert. (although that is hard to imagine). We forget that serfdom emerged out of a labor shortage, and starvation may have increased further without it as a means of the involuntary organization of production. Moreover, humans have the same problem with slavery as we do with random abuse, with domestic abuse, with animal abuse, and even with abuse of physical commons, and normative commons: in-group people who do that are dangerous to us as well. So I don’t want to see slavery (in the plantation model, not the greek model) because I understand that it leads to retaliation. If you want to raise people as pets and treat them as pets, you know, I am not so sure I have a problem with that. If you want to raise people through paternalism, I am not only ok with it, but it appears to be necessary. If you want to exterminate people, I am perfectly OK with that, as long as it’s because they are impossible to cooperate with and survive. But as far as I know, slavery doesn’t produce any end worth it’s cost. (Today). So that is an AMORAL argument fully constructed from rational incentives without appeal to introspection. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Q: “What is Your Position on Slavery?”

    Well, I suppose I have to be impolitic here and just go with the truth.  But let me prevaricate a little bit and remind all that my job is to make amoral (non moral, non-introspective) arguments.  So I am not going to satisfy your moral intuition’s needs for confirmation in this essay.SLAVERY? [C]ooperation between relative equals is so disproportionately rewarding that it is difficult not to make use of it. Cooperation is not universally valuable, even if possible, because at some point the differences between the parties mean that there is nothing of value that they can exchange (the degree to which this is pervasive in the world is why we end up with classes and castes.) ( Cooperation is not universally possible because if there is a marginal difference in suppression of free riding (parasitism) then agreements that yield productive results are not possible. (Russia/Iran) Cooperation is not possible if the others are not capable of cooperating (Pygmys). Cooperation is sometimes undesirable if cooperation may lead to one’s eventual extermination. (this happens even if you will eventually be out-competed by what appears to be mutually beneficial cooperation.) (american indians) Cooperation is not possible if the other party is intent on your displacement, conquest, conversion, out-breeding, or extermination. (Palestinians) Paternalism (managed evolution / colonialism / rule) of those who are either not valuable to cooperate with, or not possible to cooperate with, or deadly to cooperate with can possibly provide returns if you can afford to produce them. Paternalism (managed evolution / colonialism / rule) is only preferable if in the long term, you do sufficient good and insufficient harm, that the population, once evolved, will not harm you, and will persist in trading with you, and you will obtain long term rewards from that cooperation. (India) If Paternalism (managed evolution) is not possible because the others are not capable of cooperation, or you cannot afford to evolve them, and you can ignore them, then ignoring them is the cheapest solution. If you cannot ignore them, cannot evolve them, and cannot cooperate with them, then you can conquer or exterminate them. If you cannot afford to conquer or exterminate them, then they will defeat you. Therefore; – We can exterminate those who threaten us. – We can resist conquerors and superior competitors. – We can trade with peers. – We can evolve non-peers. – We can protect (treat as pets) the non threatening. – We can ignore those who are irrelevant. The problem with slavery is that it’s very expensive to police sentient creatures whose dominance hierarchy we cannot assume leadership of. Any potential slave is of better utility in the voluntary organization of production (the market) than he is in the involuntary organization of production. It’s fairly expensive to take care of pets. (Pygmys, Primitives). But the alternative is to lose all future potential from them, and often, lose the value that they bring to existence. (Giraffe’s and Elephants). It’s fine to make pets from non-sentients as long as we don’t cause them to suffer – even if they would prefer to be independent, sometimes the alternative to being a pet is extinction (tigers). It is very hard to imagine non-threatening sentients that we cannot ignore. [S]o in this list I cannot see the wisdom of involuntary slavery, unless somehow we make the case the slavery is a less expensive alternative to extermination. (And that, I think, is a hard argument to make. Bullets are cheap after all.) Now if we were to return to agrarian poverty in the next thousand years, the economics of slavery MIGHT invert. (although that is hard to imagine). We forget that serfdom emerged out of a labor shortage, and starvation may have increased further without it as a means of the involuntary organization of production. Moreover, humans have the same problem with slavery as we do with random abuse, with domestic abuse, with animal abuse, and even with abuse of physical commons, and normative commons: in-group people who do that are dangerous to us as well. So I don’t want to see slavery (in the plantation model, not the greek model) because I understand that it leads to retaliation. If you want to raise people as pets and treat them as pets, you know, I am not so sure I have a problem with that. If you want to raise people through paternalism, I am not only ok with it, but it appears to be necessary. If you want to exterminate people, I am perfectly OK with that, as long as it’s because they are impossible to cooperate with and survive. But as far as I know, slavery doesn’t produce any end worth it’s cost. (Today). So that is an AMORAL argument fully constructed from rational incentives without appeal to introspection. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • NO, ROTHBARDIANISM IS OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. PERIOD Cosmopolitan Libertarians (mea

    NO, ROTHBARDIANISM IS OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. PERIOD

    Cosmopolitan Libertarians (meaning zero-commons advocates) do not perceive the commons as in their reproductive interests, so they reject paying for them. Mostly because they are rejects. It’s logical.

    Anglo libertarians (meaning advocates of commons free of perverse incentives), or what we call ‘small government, classical liberals’ are not rejects, and do not object to paying for commons. They object to predation, parasitism, commons that create perverse incentives.

    >>> That is called “the modern regulatory nation-state”, not “libertarians.”

    Curt Doolittle

    Actually no. Rothbardian ethics (Cosmopolitan Libertinism) circumvent not only all physical, but all normative commons consequent to intersubjectively verifiable property. As walter block and Rothbard argue, blackmail, abuse of asymmetric information, externality, and no promise of warranty are central to the libertarian ethical system. Period.

    In other words, Rothbardian ethics are the ethics of the ghetto: the low trust society of the ghetto and levant. Rothbard advanced Jewish ghetto ethics (separatism) as a substitute for anglo Saxon liberty (high trust and extensive commons). And while it is possible to use Rothbard’s ethical system for inter-state law (separatists), it is insufficient for intra-group law, since low trust increases both transaction costs and demand for authoritarian intervention to suppress retaliation for actions that invoke retaliation.

    So, no, it’s not an opinion, it’s merely fact. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic, and since they encourage parasitism, predatory, and non-rational, since demand for the state is equal to the lack of suppression (means of resolution) for impositions of costs both physical, institutional and normative.

    That’s just empirical. People retaliate. People pay high costs to retaliate.

    That’s because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding, so we evolved altruistic punishment in order to prevent disintegration of cooperation by the production of perverse incentives. This desire to retaliate on one hand and invest on the other is called our ‘moral intuitions’.

    Rothbardianism is objectively, rationally, empirically, immoral.

    Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 10:16:00 UTC

  • THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A MORAL PHILOSOPHY —I suppose it would really annoy H

    THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS A MORAL PHILOSOPHY

    —I suppose it would really annoy Hawking to have it demonstrated that the scientific method is only a moral philosophy: a set of criticisms that allow you to warranty that your theories are free of existential impossibility, limitlessness, error, bias, imaginary content, wishful thinking, deception, and (objective) immorality (in the domain of the social sciences).—

    (The first person who gave me that idea was Ken Hopf. Too bad he is stuck in 1930.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 08:52:00 UTC

  • I don’t confuse anything. Or rather, I may occasionally experience confusion, bu

    I don’t confuse anything. Or rather, I may occasionally experience confusion, but in this case I can demonstrate my lack of confusion by means of explanatory power: Simple facts: Trust = Economic Velocity = Available Consumption. Trust is not sentimental value. It is a measure of the complexity of economic and social relations that can be constructed given the transaction costs that impede them. 50% of the Russian economy is dependent upon oil, and NOT dependent upon Russian norms (“character”). If the economy were dependent upon Russian “character” then the standard of living would return to pre-war levels, and Russians would live as do the Muslims and Mongols whose norms they inherited..

    And this is why I’m criticizing your moral equivalency: because you are trying equate things that are not equal. Russia is just another Mongolian, Tatar or Muslim nation with the trappings of Christendom, the trappings of an economy, and the trappings of culture.

    Russians are a negative influence on the world and are responsible for more death, suffering, and impoverishment than any government other than Mao’s. Eastern Europe must be free of Mongols, muscovites, Turks, Tatars, and other steppe tribes who would bring their low trust, low economic velocity, to the people of the west. Eastern Europe is European. Muscovites are Mongols and Tatars. Think like and act like Muslims, Mongols and Tatars: steppe and desert people.

    Ukraine needs to restore its heritage as a European, not Mongolian/Tatar/muscovite slave pit for despotic rule.

    The world is a better place without Russians in it. “Go home.”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-23 01:58:00 UTC

  • Truth: Why is Propertarianism Different?

    [B]ecause while a number of other philosophers have come to the conclusion that all we must do is tell the truth, no other philosopher has told you how you can tell the truth: by speaking truthfully: by providing the warranty that you have performed due diligence on any speech that you place into the informational and normative commons. And by describing precisely how you can perform that due diligence.

  • Truth: Why is Propertarianism Different?

    [B]ecause while a number of other philosophers have come to the conclusion that all we must do is tell the truth, no other philosopher has told you how you can tell the truth: by speaking truthfully: by providing the warranty that you have performed due diligence on any speech that you place into the informational and normative commons. And by describing precisely how you can perform that due diligence.