Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • GUNS: TIME FOR REFORM, BUT NOT OF GUNS (feminist ideology trigger warning) THE D

    GUNS: TIME FOR REFORM, BUT NOT OF GUNS

    (feminist ideology trigger warning)

    THE DEFINITIVE ANSWER

    It certainly means that people taking brain altering chemicals should be required to put them in storage for the duration. So far, it looks like the primary difference between American ‘shooters’ and others, is that an absurd amount of Americans are taking various brain altering chemicals for various forms of depression. And that they have this depression and are taking those chemicals for the simple reason that American culture produces intolerable loneliness in exchange for extraordinary levels of personal consumption.

    – The Absolute Nuclear Family creates the potential for loneliness.

    – Internal Migration of people to capital rather than capital to people creates loneliness.

    – Normatively diverse schools create conflict in youth.

    – Normative diversity creates conflict in life.

    – Access to political power under capitalism rewards normative diversity, cultural diversity and genetic diversity, and conflict.

    Blame: Socialists, Economists: the prioritization of monetary consumption over familial insurance, and Feminists: the prioritization of feminism over family bonds and insurance.

    Women are the world’s consumers, and they created consumerism because they cannot resist the nesting impulse, any more than an addict can resist his fix. And women prefer permissive motherhood rather than normative constraint motherhood, because it is much more work to raise your child to be a competitive, productive and cooperative member of society than it is to not train your child to be so.

    Labor was a trivial problem. Women were the reason for the decline of western civilization.

    It’s painful. It’s impolitic. But it’s true. Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-20 06:15:00 UTC

  • Moral Objectivity or Relativity?

    [M]orality is as absolute as mathematics. Everything else is not morality but competitive strategy: contractual variations upon objective morality. Just as all law is as absolute as mathematics but all legislation contractual variation (or command).

    The conflation of morality with strategy, and law with command is a long-standing problem in rational philosophy. The law and morality are identical in content. Group Strategy and Group Contract are merely utilitarian. Cooperation evolved after individual survival. For cooperation to be rational it must be mutually beneficial. For it to be mutually beneficial it must be (in the aggregate) non-parasitic. We raise our children, demonstrate kin selection with kin, and we cooperate with non-kin, and we compete with those with whom we do not cooperate. So: Productive Fully informed. Warrantied. Voluntary Transfer Free of Negative Externality of the same criteria equals beneficial cooperation. Morality is an absolute. Norms are merely tactics. Legislation is not necessarily lawful. Norms are not necessarily moral. 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. So not only is morality absolute, but the relative moral content of different cultures is absolute. That this difference determines economic velocity, and economic velocity affords us greater morality (if we choose it) is the more interesting area of inquiry. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Moral Objectivity or Relativity?

    [M]orality is as absolute as mathematics. Everything else is not morality but competitive strategy: contractual variations upon objective morality. Just as all law is as absolute as mathematics but all legislation contractual variation (or command).

    The conflation of morality with strategy, and law with command is a long-standing problem in rational philosophy. The law and morality are identical in content. Group Strategy and Group Contract are merely utilitarian. Cooperation evolved after individual survival. For cooperation to be rational it must be mutually beneficial. For it to be mutually beneficial it must be (in the aggregate) non-parasitic. We raise our children, demonstrate kin selection with kin, and we cooperate with non-kin, and we compete with those with whom we do not cooperate. So: Productive Fully informed. Warrantied. Voluntary Transfer Free of Negative Externality of the same criteria equals beneficial cooperation. Morality is an absolute. Norms are merely tactics. Legislation is not necessarily lawful. Norms are not necessarily moral. 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. So not only is morality absolute, but the relative moral content of different cultures is absolute. That this difference determines economic velocity, and economic velocity affords us greater morality (if we choose it) is the more interesting area of inquiry. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The common good is only so good as it does not drain my family, and helps my fam

    The common good is only so good as it does not drain my family, and helps my family. My family, my clan, my tribe are my life. You may FEEL that some other common good is better, but then, that is just a preference, not a fact.

    I would rather improve the lot and reproduction rates of the more noble families than mine, than I would the reproduction rates and lot of those that are less so. That ismy preference.

    We can achieve my preference without parasitism. But we cannot achieve the progressive dream of dysgenia without parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-16 03:55:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARAINISM ALLOWS YOU TO WRITE PROOFS. Now, a proof is not a ‘truth’, it is

    PROPERTARAINISM ALLOWS YOU TO WRITE PROOFS.

    Now, a proof is not a ‘truth’, it is a test of existential possibility. It just says something is possible. That’s all it tells you. But just as a proof in math helps you grasp very complex processes, a proof in human action allows you to grasp very complex processes.

    Propertarian proofs are not much harder to write than mathematical proofs. There are a very limited number of operations, and a very limited number of categories of property to consider.

    Within a year or two I will be able to teach people how to write praxeological ‘proofs’, to either test if something is possible, or challenge whether something is possible.

    At that point, psychology will be limited to the study of cognitive biases, and economics will be divided into deceptions (disinformation by policy) and truths (institutional improvements in the means of cooperation).

    And we will be able to demonstrate how to write strictly constructed law free of judicial activism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-15 05:59:00 UTC

  • Rights of Limited Market Monopoly (Intellectual Property)

    [E]xcuse me in advance for the language of my analytic philosophy. That said, I tend to describe the grant of limited monopoly license under similar criteria to which we grant the license to property: “Transitus(transit), Usus(use), Fructus (fruits of), Mancipio(transfer), and Abusus(consumption)”.

    We can grant different rights to property. We can grant different rights to the market as well.

    In intellectual property I use: Innovatio(invention), Investimus(investment), Produco(requrement for production.) . We can grant these three rights as long as we maintain the corresponding requirements – of which time is actually a poor measure.

    1) ‘INNOVATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a lottery effect as a means of encouraging innovation.
    – In which case, one must maintain a product in production in order to maintain the original intent. In other words, there can be no patent protection per se, merely a patent serves as prohibition on competition for the resulting products and services.

    2) ‘INVESTIGATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a limited monopoly as a means of funding off-book research and development for goods not possible for the market to produce otherwise at current incentives. This is probably a much better solution to basic research than is the grant system.
    – In which case it is possible to set a limited return on the limited monopoly – not just in time but also in income.

    3) ‘PRODUCO’ : The moral prohibition on free riding*, and a requirement for production in order to participate in the commons (market).
    – In which case the prohibition must be limited to profiting in the broadest sense, not to personal copying, for personal use. (Creative Commons for example).

    *The prohibition on free riding (imposition of costs) that we evolved to prevent ‘cheating’ in parallel to our evolution of cooperation might require some explaining. We retaliate, at cost, against the imposition cost, whether it be obvious violence theft and fraud, less obvious free riding, or imperceptible violation of moral norms.

    REPAIRING EXTERNALITIES
    Now, some side effects are perverse and obvious:

    But some externalities are less obvious:

      Curt Doolittle
      The Propertarian Institute
      Kiev, Ukraine.

    • Rights of Limited Market Monopoly (Intellectual Property)

      [E]xcuse me in advance for the language of my analytic philosophy. That said, I tend to describe the grant of limited monopoly license under similar criteria to which we grant the license to property: “Transitus(transit), Usus(use), Fructus (fruits of), Mancipio(transfer), and Abusus(consumption)”.

      We can grant different rights to property. We can grant different rights to the market as well.

      In intellectual property I use: Innovatio(invention), Investimus(investment), Produco(requrement for production.) . We can grant these three rights as long as we maintain the corresponding requirements – of which time is actually a poor measure.

      1) ‘INNOVATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a lottery effect as a means of encouraging innovation.
      – In which case, one must maintain a product in production in order to maintain the original intent. In other words, there can be no patent protection per se, merely a patent serves as prohibition on competition for the resulting products and services.

      2) ‘INVESTIGATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a limited monopoly as a means of funding off-book research and development for goods not possible for the market to produce otherwise at current incentives. This is probably a much better solution to basic research than is the grant system.
      – In which case it is possible to set a limited return on the limited monopoly – not just in time but also in income.

      3) ‘PRODUCO’ : The moral prohibition on free riding*, and a requirement for production in order to participate in the commons (market).
      – In which case the prohibition must be limited to profiting in the broadest sense, not to personal copying, for personal use. (Creative Commons for example).

      *The prohibition on free riding (imposition of costs) that we evolved to prevent ‘cheating’ in parallel to our evolution of cooperation might require some explaining. We retaliate, at cost, against the imposition cost, whether it be obvious violence theft and fraud, less obvious free riding, or imperceptible violation of moral norms.

      REPAIRING EXTERNALITIES
      Now, some side effects are perverse and obvious:

      But some externalities are less obvious:

        Curt Doolittle
        The Propertarian Institute
        Kiev, Ukraine.

      • WE DON’T NEED A MONOPOLY PRODUCER OF COMMONS. WE NEED A MARKET FOR COMMONS AND R

        WE DON’T NEED A MONOPOLY PRODUCER OF COMMONS. WE NEED A MARKET FOR COMMONS AND RULE OF LAW

        (worth repeating) (edited for clarity)

        The state under rule of law, is a monopoly. But any complete and internally consistent logic that is also externally correspondent, existentially possible, and objectively moral, is a monopolistic definition, by necessity. So it’s interesting that if law is scientifically constructed then it’s a monopoly by consequence of logical necessity, not choice.

        The ‘state’ under rule of law is just the body of law and the institutional process of applying it by the judiciary. It’s a tool for the resolution of disputes only. or more precisely, for the suppression of parasitism.

        The ‘government’ under Propertarianism is close to a misnomer. A Propertarian government cannot make laws, only contracts. As such functions as a market for the production of commons. In that market, we can construct contracts between peoples willing to conduct exchanges. In assenting to those contracts, you don’t have to agree with another person or group’s proposition – there is no need for your approval, so your assent can’t be ‘bought’. Instead, you can only dissent by stating how it’s an imposition of costs upon those who don’t want it, and that accusation must stand legal (Propertarian) scrutiny. Just as any other person in any other walk of life can object to the imposition of costs.

        There is no need for monopoly production of commons. And therefore no need for majority rule. All laws are produced outside of the ‘government’ (commons builders). The only monopoly necessary is that of the law, just as the only monopoly in the logic of relations is mathematics. And that monopoly is purely logical.

        So there is no need to create a parasitic monopoly bureaucracy for the production of commons.

        a) politicians are parasitic.

        b) the bureaucracy is parasitic,

        c) the industrial rent seekers are parasitic.

        d) the redistribution seekers are parasitic.

        BUT

        To civilize man (suppress his free riding,and force him to produce in the market to survive) we create central bureaucracies that suppress family and local rents, then centralize rents, and use those profits to pay to civilize man and to eliminate the local middlemen.

        To further civilize man we now eliminate the central bureaucracy and rely entirely on the common interests in suppressing the emergence of statism (monopoly) using rule of law., under the common law, under the total prohibition on parasitism, directly or indirectly, by positive expression of property rights.

        Curt Doolittle

        The Propertarian Institute

        Kiev, Ukraine

        Source date (UTC): 2015-06-12 04:27:00 UTC

      • Without Propertarianism strict construction of law ( operational ism in law) is

        Without Propertarianism strict construction of law ( operational ism in law) is not possible.

        With Propertarianism strict construction is possible.

        And not particularly difficult.

        “Given this means of involuntary transfer/free riding,

        We prohibit such transfers,

        And define these rights,

        By this reasoning,

        Until such time as the aforementioned means of involuntary transfer is no longer possible.”

        We require no legislature. We require only a formal market for the construction of commons by contract.

        Source date (UTC): 2015-06-10 03:41:00 UTC

      • Yes on Samuelson and Marshall. Reason? JUSTIFICATION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC If one su

        Yes on Samuelson and Marshall. Reason?

        JUSTIFICATION IS NOT SCIENTIFIC

        If one subscribes to the error of justificationism, the method legitimizes the theory. If one subscribes to critical rationalism, the method of theorizing is irrelevant, and the ability of the theory to withstand criticism is its only meaningful test of truth content.

        The problem of ‘mathiness’ is that without reduction to subjectively testable sequence of operational statements, we cannot state that our statements are existentially possible.

        I usually recommend people who understand economics and want to learn to discuss it, read and follow Karl Smith’s writing, because he writes in operational and therefore scientific terms. And that style is the reason he has provided insights that others have previously missed. (He writes less now unfortunately. I would love to see him on a talking head show.)

        And why does Karl write in Operational terms? Because he has non-trivial knowledge of technology. And that’s what software teaches you to do. To avoid the problem of mathiness.

        Cheers

        Source date (UTC): 2015-05-22 15:14:00 UTC