Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Can Professors At Universities Teach And Have Opinions That Are Very Much Contrary To The Scientific Community At Large?

    THE BEST ANSWER YOU WILL FIND

    All university departments hold biases, and the careers of the members of the department depend upon upholding those biases, because of the incentives to publish, and the authoritarian hierarchy of the university and departments that was inherited from the church – which invented the university.  There is very little practical difference between the practice of ideology and the practice of academic research in this regard. In practice, ideas die with their originators and sponsors, not when they are disproved. The investment is too high. The incentive to over-invest in a paradigm to retain one’s position is too high.  This is why students must choose departments based upon what the department members publish.

    Sowell’s recommended “fix” is to financially and organizationally separate research departments (that do not serve the interests of students whatsoever) from teaching departments (whose only concern is the students) but the administration (serving neither the students or the researchers) is currently consuming all the vast investment americans are making in educations (that have questionable return, and in some cases negative return.)  Realistically if undergrad students paid teaching professors, not researchers, for their education, and we regulated administration and capital acquisition to 20% of fees, education would be absurdly inexpensive, and students would leave with little debt.  We could then ask grad students and phd students and the government to bear the costs of research, rather than the undergrads. And we would shrink the administration back to it’s necessary and sufficient size.  (Financially, academia now has absorbed all the costs originally saved by eliminating the church.  For all intents and purposes, we have merely replaced academia and church with academia. In fact, I am pretty confident that academia is far more expensive than the post-enlightenment church was in every form of capital consumption.)

    But the university system is not designed for students and their careers, it is designed to provide economic rents to researchers and administrators, by selling faulty products to students,  that in any other industry would be open to class action lawsuits for fraudulent representation, and possible only because of inflationary pressure on by the government, in the same way that the government created inflationary pressure on the housing industry leading to the 2008 crash.

    See Sowell’s work and Caplan’s work.  Caplan is always someone you must be skeptical of nearly everything he says, so his his empirical work is what you can appreciate, but you must ignore all his conclusions. (Sort of like reading Marx.)

    https://www.quora.com/Can-professors-at-universities-teach-and-have-opinions-that-are-very-much-contrary-to-the-scientific-community-at-large

  • Can Professors At Universities Teach And Have Opinions That Are Very Much Contrary To The Scientific Community At Large?

    THE BEST ANSWER YOU WILL FIND

    All university departments hold biases, and the careers of the members of the department depend upon upholding those biases, because of the incentives to publish, and the authoritarian hierarchy of the university and departments that was inherited from the church – which invented the university.  There is very little practical difference between the practice of ideology and the practice of academic research in this regard. In practice, ideas die with their originators and sponsors, not when they are disproved. The investment is too high. The incentive to over-invest in a paradigm to retain one’s position is too high.  This is why students must choose departments based upon what the department members publish.

    Sowell’s recommended “fix” is to financially and organizationally separate research departments (that do not serve the interests of students whatsoever) from teaching departments (whose only concern is the students) but the administration (serving neither the students or the researchers) is currently consuming all the vast investment americans are making in educations (that have questionable return, and in some cases negative return.)  Realistically if undergrad students paid teaching professors, not researchers, for their education, and we regulated administration and capital acquisition to 20% of fees, education would be absurdly inexpensive, and students would leave with little debt.  We could then ask grad students and phd students and the government to bear the costs of research, rather than the undergrads. And we would shrink the administration back to it’s necessary and sufficient size.  (Financially, academia now has absorbed all the costs originally saved by eliminating the church.  For all intents and purposes, we have merely replaced academia and church with academia. In fact, I am pretty confident that academia is far more expensive than the post-enlightenment church was in every form of capital consumption.)

    But the university system is not designed for students and their careers, it is designed to provide economic rents to researchers and administrators, by selling faulty products to students,  that in any other industry would be open to class action lawsuits for fraudulent representation, and possible only because of inflationary pressure on by the government, in the same way that the government created inflationary pressure on the housing industry leading to the 2008 crash.

    See Sowell’s work and Caplan’s work.  Caplan is always someone you must be skeptical of nearly everything he says, so his his empirical work is what you can appreciate, but you must ignore all his conclusions. (Sort of like reading Marx.)

    https://www.quora.com/Can-professors-at-universities-teach-and-have-opinions-that-are-very-much-contrary-to-the-scientific-community-at-large

  • CONTRA LESTER: HOPPE IS RIGHT. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO PROPERTY. (worth promo

    CONTRA LESTER: HOPPE IS RIGHT. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO PROPERTY.

    (worth promoting and repeating)

    Lester’s central argument is that he has stated a pre-property and pre-moral argument. He has not. He has merely constructed a top down deduction of morality out of normative usage of the term liberty, and called it “interpersonal liberty”, rather than observed and empirically documented a bottom up definition of liberty using morality. In simple words, Lester has created a verbal distinction where none exists, and claimed the verbalism as an innovation. He uses elaborate justification and overloading to obscure his tautology. And so he creates a verbal innovation only, and one that strangely enough, depends upon a contradiction in terms.

    That generations of Cosmopolitans have engaged in deception and justification, including Berlin, who have extended the technique of hermeneutic argument, derived from centuries of justifying Jewish Scripture and dual-ethical law, is precisely the behavior I have constructed propertarianism to defend against. The postmoderns, the Freudians, the pseudoscientists that intentionally took over Sociology, the marxists, the critical rationalists under Popper, the feminists, the libertine-libertarians, and even Hoppe’s german rationalism, all make use of this anti-rational, anti-modern, anti-empirical verbalism. The reason the twentieth century was plagued by every form of pseudoscience and psuedo-ratioanlism was this new verbal mysticism, constructed by cosmopolitans with the same intention that the Germans invented continental rationalism, and the french invented their continental mythos: to retain group traditions in the face of empirical innovations in science that threatened them.

    Like I have said all along. I am returning libertarianism to a foundation in testimonial truth, operational definitions, and the scientific method, to expressly defend liberty against verbal error and deception that Lester is engaged in, along with all other pseudoscientists (Mises), pseudo-rationalists (Lester and Block), and outright ideologists (Rothbard) that engage in Verbalism rather than demonstrable action.

    1) Humans must acquire and inventory, and evolved to intuit acquisitiveness.

    2) That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they intuit as their property.

    3) The scope of those things they act or choose not to act upon constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.

    4) Emotions reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.

    5) Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding (imposed costs).

    6) Moral intuitions vary to suit one’s reproductive strategy (compatibilism but conflict)

    7) Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production.

    8) Property rights are the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment.

    9) Property rights are necessary as an instrumental representation of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in state. (we have no lie detectors). And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state.

    Lester is irrelevant. He is not harmful. He is just irrelevant.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-22 18:02:00 UTC

  • COMPLETING MY ANALYSIS OF LESTER (FINAL WORD NECESSARY I SUSPECT) (thanks to Kar

    COMPLETING MY ANALYSIS OF LESTER (FINAL WORD NECESSARY I SUSPECT)

    (thanks to Karl for helping me with this topic)

    An individual, a gang of thugs, and members of a state, all may impose costs on you. They call may conduct criminal, unethical and immoral actions. However since it takes more than one to conspire, only a gang and a state can conspire. And since it requires a state (a territorial monopoly) to violate your liberty (freedom of interference from the state) then only state actors, by definition, can violate liberty in fact, while the gang and a group and an individual can only violate your liberty by ANALOGY. They can all engage in immoral actions, where the spectrum of immorality includes criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions.

    Why is this very technical argument necessary? Because it shows that while morality (freedom from imposed costs) evolved, and for the purpose of distinction, was divided into morality and liberty, all Lester has done is to divide Liberty into two categories: Political Liberty and Interpersonal Liberty, by constructing the NAME interpersonal liberty, (which is itself a contradiction in terms), and claiming that he has made a pre moral pre-property argument. He hasn’t. He’s just made up a new word. That doesn’t diminish that he worked backwards from political liberty to identify morality, but it does mean that his claim that he has created a pre-moral definition of liberty is false.

    History tells us that morality evolved first, and that Liberty evolved second, like rule of law, a constraint upon the government, no matter how that government was constructed, that it must perpetuate and not violate those moral rules. Religion even today constrains government to not violate moral rules – that is why conservatives are successful.

    Science tells us that (a) humans evolved to be acquisitive of many things, and changes in human gratification, are synonymous with changes in property en toto, (b) morality, and agitated punishment for moral violation, evolved as instinct against free riding and imposting costs against property en toto, of those with whom we cooperate in order to prevent parasitism, (c) property rights adjudicable under law, constitute a contractual agreement to resolve conflicts over only a subset of those forms of property needed for cooperation in the community given its division of knowledge and labor, and (d) the subset of property necessary to construct liberty (from the state) is that which prevents enough retaliation for any moral violation in the possible scope of moral violations, that will produce conflict or retaliation, and therefore demand for an authoritarian state, to either suppress retaliation or apply violence to those who violate moral rules outside of courts, and; (e) the subset that prevents demand for government is the construction of contractual institutions rather than authoritarian instructions which allow the construction of enforceable contracts for the production of commons necessary for any group to compete against any other group, as well as those commons which groups wish to prevent from consumption (parks etc).

    Lester practices “get away with it’ Truth. He’s a cosmopolitan libertine using marxist arguments and hiding behind a misrepresentation of critical rationalism – which is in itself hermeneutic and cosmopolitan. He has constructed and makes use of extant meaning, not action or necessity. As such I cannot use his work. He is the kind of fuzzy thinker that we require propertarianism, operationalism and testimonial truth to defend ourselves from – and therefore end the century of pseudoscientific and pseudo philosophical mysticism.

    I have sketched this out enough times that I have reduced the necessary argument to this little bit. It has taken me, as usual, quite a bit of effort to do so. But as far as I know, my criticism of Lester is the best extant, and he is little other than another example of the culture of critique: a cosmopolitan of libertine sentiments using marxist arguments like most libertine libertarians will be all but impossible to refute.

    So as far as I know, Lester not immoral like Rothbard, he’s just immaterial.

    I may refine this a net or two, but it’s pretty much rock solid. Like I say. I am good at what I do. It’s just an objective observation. It sounds like egoism – but the truth is it’s because I work very, very hard, and no other reason. When I construct a debate it is so that I can learn under fire. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian after all.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-22 16:10:00 UTC

  • LESTER’S ARGUMENT STATED ANALYTICALLY So, JCL has written a paper of N pages and

    LESTER’S ARGUMENT STATED ANALYTICALLY

    So, JCL has written a paper of N pages and I’ve distilled it to this:

    PROPOSITION

    “Self identified libertarians normatively use the term liberty but cannot agree upon its meaning”

    “We assume that we can agree that the term liberty refers to an individual constraining another.”

    “We can define cost, as a decrease in satisfaction of the individual.”

    “We can deconstruct constraint into the action and the consequence.

    As such, (for some reason) we can call constraint a born cost.”

    And we can (for some reason) call causing constraint an imposed cost.”

    “The Normative use of the term Self ownership is not false by this definition, since costs born against the self cause a decrease in satisfaction”

    “The Normative use of the term Private property is not false by this definition since costs against private property cause a decrease in satisfaction”

    “Because we use this term Liberty in many cases to refer to the absence of constraint,

    and because we can operationalize constraint as an action (imposed cost) and a reaction (born cost),

    and because we are expressing these terms in words,

    then we can call it a theory.”

    “Because the normative use of the term self ownership is non contradictory,

    and because the normative use of the term private property is non contradictory

    and because the deconstruction of the term constraint into imposed costs and born costs is internally consistent,

    this theory is not contradictory.

    THEREFORE

    A state of liberty is one in which individuals do not bear decreases in satisfaction due to lost opportunities for satisfaction,

    And they do not bear costs of decreased satisfaction because of (some constraint on) private property

    And they do not bear costs of decreased satisfaction against “self ownership” because of (some constraint upon) the self,

    Therefore since our extant terminology is internally consistent,

    then our theory is not false,

    and our theory does not depend upon morality, property, or property rights, only subjective experience of decreased satisfaction.

    ANALYSIS AND CRITICISM

    This argument changes the point of view to that of the individual instead of that of the jurist. Libertarian arguments are generally structured from the point of view of the jurist: the problem of decidability.

    Lester’s position is to some degree a novel argument in that libertarian theory has generally been predicated upon the institutional problem of expressing rules that can be adjudicable under law.

    While his is a novel point of view, if we must return to the question of positive assertions expressible in law, we are left with defining the scope of property, defining the scope of property rights, and the means of violating those rights. Nothing is solved for us.

    Traditional arguments assume violations of property cause individual dissatisfaction, and consider the problem of decidability as to whether a violation has occurred or not. Lester’s theory articulates the individual’s experience (point of view) instead of the jurors point of view. However this theory does not solve the problem of categorizing just what the individual feels loss in regard to, which is the central problem of WHAT violations are open to resolution in court and which are not.

    Or more precisely, what divides low trust “libertine” rothbardian ethics and his prohibition on ‘criminal’ behavior, from high trust ‘western’ ethics and the prohibition against criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial behavior. Nor the fact that it is irrational for individuals to choose high transaction cost, low trust polities where there remains high demand for the state to suppress retaliation for unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior. As such no libertarian polity can rationally form under rothbardian low trust ethics.

    As such, while it is true that individuals prefer not to bear lost satisfaction because of the constraints of others, the problem remains one of property and property rights: what prohibitions, expressed as positive rights, must be defined in order for the rational formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of an authority to suppress retaliation against criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior. The problem is not in clarifying the reason for the individual, since this has always been assumed, but in what property rights are adjudicable under law such that a state free of constraints that cause decreased satisfaction ***CAN*** exist.

    His argument then while novel, is irrelevant, because it has always been assumed. The question is not the experience of the individual, but what actions we can take to construct institutions formal and informal. What contract can we construct in law? What can and cannot be resolved in court?

    Why? Because humans ACT MORALLY, and therefore will retaliate aggressively against criminal, ethical, moral and conspiratorial violations. As such we must address which disputes are necessary to prevent retaliation. While we all agree that loss of satisfaction is ‘bad’, that doesnt tell us what losses of satisfaction are those we are willing to insure, and which are we NOT willing to insure? Since that is what the formal institution of law does: provide insurance that disputes can be resolved.

    So we can state that:

    – man’s moral intuitions result in normative moral rules,

    – and that testable, and therefore true, moral rules are universally articulable as prohibitions on involuntary transfer (imposed costs, free riding),

    – and that such moral rules can be universally articulated as property rights.

    – That all such rights are adjudicable under organic (common) polycentric law.

    – That ostensibly moral rules that are not articulable as property rights are categorically unnecessary morals, merely signals signals, and not necessary morals.

    – That some groups demonstrate higher moral suppression of imposed costs than other groups, and that some groups are therefore qualitatively more moral than other groups.

    THE SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT

    Moral intuitions against free riding evolved in parallel with cooperation and antecedent to liberty, since liberty required cooperative organizations which of necessity developed consequent to morality. Without moral rules, cooperation is undesirable and impossible.

    Liberty is merely the name for our original evolutionary moral constraint applied to members of organizations capable of exercising power.

    You have correctly identified the causal property of morality (imposed cost). You have correctly articulated an additional point of view. But perhaps failed to grasp that liberty is merely an application of moral prohibitions and nothing more. And that moral intuition, imposed costs, demonstrated property, and sufficient expression of property rights to make unnecessary retaliatory actions, since all retaliatory actions are expressible as property rights.

    The reason Rothbard chose his method of defining property and morality (aggression) was that as a cosmopolitan he wanted to preserve the prohibition on retaliation for immoral action, thus licensing immoral action. The question is, why would he do that?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-17 20:30:00 UTC

  • CONTRA JAN LESTER’S THEORY OF LIBERTY? I AM NOT SURE YET. (edited and expanded f

    CONTRA JAN LESTER’S THEORY OF LIBERTY? I AM NOT SURE YET.

    (edited and expanded for clarity)

    The history of the term liberty and corresponding concept of liberty is what it is. The history of property is what it is. The history of law is what it is. The history of cooperation, family and production are what they are. The history of criminal, unethical and immoral behavior are what they are. We define these terms many ways but the common element that they share is the prohibition on free riding (morality) or the prohibition on involuntary transfer (various forms of fraud and indirection), and prohibitions on the imposition of costs (various forms of crimes against life and property).

    The only difference between the criminal, ethical, and moral spectrum, and the historical definition of liberty, is whether the actions are criminal, unethical, and immoral violations precipitated by non-government actors against whom we can retaliate or request resolution of the dispute, OR whether they are precipitated by members of the monopoly we call bureaucracy, government and state, against whom we cannot retaliate.

    We can define liberty as it has been throughout time (freedom from governmental interference in our thoughts, actions, relations and property.) I think attempting to redefine it is merely an attempt at verbalism. Rationalism has nothing to add but justification.

    At this point, I am still stuck with the same problem I have been since Lee Waaks suggested Jan Lester’s work to me: that I see that he has correctly identified the causal property of morality as imposed costs. (But costs imposed against what?) But that I don’t really see that his ‘theory of liberty’ holds any meaning or if it’s an empty verbalism (confusion and conflation). But then again, I am not sure that I understand his point.

    For example, I think this is a nonsensical statement: Lester’s theory of liberty –“is pre-propertarian because we need a theory of liberty *before* we can know how society should be “arranged” to maximize liberty.”–

    That’s like saying we need the head of a coin before we can have a tail of it. It’s not possible. You cannot have a coin with one side anymore than you can have good without evil, morality without property, and liberty without a state.

    We evolved property prior to government and the state – we had to. Otherwise cooperation is not evolutionarily beneficial but parasitic. Which is why our instincts and cognitive biases are so exaggerated in such cases.

    Liberty cannot exist without government – only morality can – unless you are redefining liberty as morality. Which I suggest that he is doing as a word game to avoid addressing that morality and property evolved prior to the state, and as such prior to liberty.

    Liberty is a state in which we experience the the absence of immoral action by state actors, just as a condition of morality is the a state in which we experience the absence of immoral action by non-state actors. Immorality and morality are instinctual biases that evolved along with cooperation. Immorality and Morality can and must refer to in-group actors violating the necessary terms of cooperation: the prohibition on parasitism (imposed costs, free-riding, involuntary transfer).

    In order to state a cost is something to bear, we must state what it is bears the cost. We cannot bear a cost unless we possess property. We may, prior to the state, define property normatively rather than legally, and we may not even produce a name for it (although all languages I know of contain the idea of possession) but legal definitions again exist post-government and post-state, but property exists prior to state, or cooperation is not possible – and it clearly has been.

    I am fairly sure this set of assertions is irrefutable. Which is why I assume that I do not understand Lester’s argument. Otherwise I would outright criticizing him for empty verbalism – word games, if not simply conflation and confusion.

    It is unscientific of me to assume I am correct, and that he errs, rather than to assume I fail to understand. However, logic and evidence are what they are: unless he can answer this objection he is using rationalism for precisely the reasons I am trying to reform the use of rationalism in politics and ethics: because it is too easy to employ rationalism as a means of obscurantist justification of presumed conclusions. Actions (operations) are the only means of avoiding word games. It is still surprising to me that a theory of human action should be expressed in rationalism, the purpose of which, as far as I know, is, and always has been, justification.

    His argument, at least in my current state of ignorance, appears to be a series of errors of verbalism, and my criticism remains: that there is nothing to be had here other than that he has correctly identified morality and is merely confusing morality with liberty, where morality must, as property must, be antecedent to any concept of liberty. I mean must, as in it is impossible otherwise.

    The question is not liberty but morality. How do we get state actors to act morally?Otherwise the properties of individual moral action and the properties of state action are not identical. Since the state consists of individuals this seems illogical, and therefore a mere verbalism.

    Maybe I don’t understand. Maybe there is something I don’t see. I just think it is unlikely. I am pretty sure my arguments are bulletproof (as usual lol).

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-15 09:57:00 UTC

  • WE SHALL HAVE A GOVERNMENT – BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? Man organizes. He forms or

    WE SHALL HAVE A GOVERNMENT – BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?

    Man organizes. He forms organizations. Just as surely as he acts.

    One cannot, in pursuit of individualism, prohibit organization, nor the allocation of control of individual property rights to the organization, so that capital can be concentrated and applied for the group’s advantage. Since people will seek to form commons, and seek to form organizations to produce commons, and since property rights and rule of law must exist as a commons, and since humans seek monopoly advantage for their preferred organization, then the question is how to construct institutions that allow for the formation of organizations for the production and EXCHANGE OF commons, the production and exchange of which are unachievable without such institutions, because, while the market is an institutions just as property rights are an institution, markets produce consumables, not commons which we must prohibit from consumption. This is the difference in production between productive markets (the market) and commons markets (what we call ‘government’). As such the task is to produce commons markets (governments) which allow for the production and trade of commons which are non-consumable, yet prohibit monopoly control of that means of production. The consumer market allows us to produce consumable goods by the voluntary organization of production. A government market allows us to produce commons by the voluntary production of commons. FOr this system to function all that need be guaranteed is individual property rights. However, any commons created within the market for the production of commons must be prevented from privatization – just the opposite of that which is produced in the market for consumption. And no body of people unable to produce commons could survive in competition with those that do. So government is not a matter of preference. We must have government and we must produce commons, even if the only commons we produce is the rule of law and property rights. The principle challenge is converting from monopoly government and monopoly bureaucracy to monopoly property rights, and a government that facilitates the voluntary organization of production of commons just as we voluntarily organize to produce goods and services today.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-09 17:33:00 UTC

  • ON MORALITY (THE FINAL WORD?) GIVEN 1) The Set of all objective prohibitions on

    ON MORALITY (THE FINAL WORD?)

    GIVEN

    1) The Set of all objective prohibitions on involuntary-transfer/free-riding/imposed-costs in the spectrum criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial.

    2) The Set of all normative rules that impose costs on participants for some normatively strategic purpose, enforced by inclusion or exclusion.

    3) The Set of formal laws intended to capture all of the above, and enforce by violence.

    4) The Set of all subjective categorical applications of those rules to concrete circumstances, not yet determinable as 1, 2, or 3.

    ASSERTIONS

    a) 1 is Universally true, since cooperation is irrational in the presence of parasitism.

    b) 2 is NOT universally true since under no universal set of norms are all groups equally competitive. Therefore it is advantageous for higher groups (with better abilities, norms, and institutions) to operate in libertarian ethics, and lower groups (those with worse abilities, norms and institutions) to operate under social democratic, or even despotic conditions.

    c) 3 is not universally true because law is a pragmatic organic adoption to the necessary condition of set 1, and the strategic condition of set 2.

    d) 4 is not universally true because because it is hypothetical experimentation not yet codified as law, norm, or necessity.

    EXPLANATION

    Different groups develop different evolutionary strategies that require treatment of in-group and out-group members differently. Under the Absolute nuclear family and the nuclear family the distinction between out-group and in-group members has been eradicated due to outbreeding. Communism and socialism likewise are attempts to destroy the family in an attempt to mitigate reproductive differences between Tribes, classes and families. As such this is a ‘white people’ problem since only northern european white people have abandoned the family and tribe and the rest of the world has not.

    In polities with Traditional and STEM families, there exists high demand for the state because in-group and out-group members are treated very differently. In a northern european aristocratic polity, in-group and out-group members are not treated differently – because there are no out-group members. However, external polties entering into the northern european polity demonstrate in-group vs out-group ethics and morality. This means that universalism or better stated, monopoly ethics, or perhaps ‘totalitarian ethics’, are in fact competitively disadvantageous against those who practice out-group ethics.

    The more ‘insurance’ provided by the state the more disadvantaged is universalism and libertarianism. Because not only are universalists paying into the commons with late child birth, working parents, and the nuclear and absolute family costs, but competitors do not practice these same constraints, and rates of birth and place multiplicative burden on the commons generated by those who contribute to it.

    So the northern european strategic advantage brought about by manorialism and the church’s prohibition on inbreeding reduces population growth rates, eliminates even in-family free riding, all in an effort to add capital to the commons, and to suppress underclass rates of reproduction. Meanwhile those that do not practice such abstinence are able to consume the commons thus saved.

    We can analyze each group’s reproductive(family structure), social (trust radius), and productive (economic) strategies but in the end, this is what is codified in our laws and norms. As such norms are morals unique to a given reproductive strategy for a given people, in competition with other peoples.

    Moral universalism is true in matters of dispute resolution – voluntary exchange is the only rational means of dispute resolution. Moral particularism is true in the case of fulfilling a reproductive strategy. But no moral strategy can be universal since that would deterministically eliminate some groups from participation. ergo -libertarianism is an aristocratic philosophy for a creative class, and other classes require other strategies. In the context of moral utility then these strategies are each moral within group and not across group. For cross group morality we only require property rights. However, since any and all collections of property rights whether objective and necessary or normative and strategic, require institutional support, we require different political orders to satisfy the reproductive strategies of each while cooperating via market means (voluntary exchange) at both the consumer, producer and political levels.

    Monopoly is tyranny.

    There is no optimum.

    Any optimum would produce deterministic ends.

    And that would mean some people would have to prefer losing the genetic competition.

    And that will never happen. Never has happened. Never can happen.

    Universalism is non-logical. Libertarian or otherwise.

    Instead, libertarianism forms the legal basis of the negotiation of conflicts between groups with heterogeneous wants and needs.

    As far as I know, albeit in brief form, this is the last word on morality, its scope and the argument for universalism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-29 09:14:00 UTC

  • The Truth: Making Honest Can’t VS Should Arguments


    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.

    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.

    CLARITY

    Truth: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Honest: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Under testimonial truth, Honestly and Truthfully are synonymous.

    CONTEXT:
    Diplomats should not posture that they have the capacity to act, and choose not to act under the cover of justifications, when they have no capacity to act. This is dishonest. Politics is a dishonest business.

    ———-
    –“THE TRUTH: MAKING HONEST CAN’T VS SHOULD ARGUMENTS–

    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.
    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.
    ———–

    Caine conveniently reduced the scope of the argument to the first sentence in order to remove the information necessary to render the argument correspondent with reality. (Usually this is merely the error of novices, or people who don’t read the entire argument; but it falls under the category of either a fallacy -straw man- or a deception – selective inclusion of information in the argument. I assume that this is merely the error of a novice. As such cain is applying the technique of formal languages to correspondent and natural languages. This is a common error of ‘logicism’ (that is the word Max was looking for). I categorize all these kinds of errors as ’empty verbalisms’. But Max was attempting to say the same thing. (I am more patient – the curse of aspie-ness.)

    —” If one can not do something (it is not reasonably possible)” is no different from “shouldn’t” in the vast majority of cases when people utter those words.—-

    This is yet another fallacy given that the counter argument that Cain put forward was a fallacy of formal language, minus the information necessary for it to be correspondent – then you Greg, counter with an argument to normative speech.

    So now we have gone from a correspondent argument, to an internally consistent argument to a normative usage argument. Now, I suspect that in the end, Neither Cain nor Greg is probably aware of the different properties of these systems and you are justifying intuition not formal criticism.

    I made a rhetorical statement, because i do not make verbalist statements. I am an active opponent of logicism as psuedoscientific when applied outside of formal bounds. I’m an operationalist
    ———–
    I didnt make an absolute statement now did I?
    ———-

    Nope. No hole there at all. Rock solid.

    NOW LETS LOOK AT YOUR ARGUMENTS

    —If Nuclear war is unacceptable for you then in this context it’s both Can’t and Impossible Max, there he can muse on his Moral Should or not, Be or not to be all day long, 24/7—

    FULLY EXPANDED:
    “If you can conduct nuclear war then
    you cant conduct nuclear war and
    its impossible to conduct nuclear war
    but you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. LETS BE MORE CHARITABLE

    Nuclear war is unacceptable. (Meaning you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.)
    AND
    You can conduct nuclear war, but you prefer not to.
    OR
    You can’t conduct nuclear war, and it’s immaterial whether you prefer to or not.

    “Can’t physically” != “Prefer not to.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. SO LETS SEE WHAT ELSE WE HAVE

    … But really we just get back to the central argument which is that you’re holding a double standard. You allow yourself the laxity of informal language with ‘…in this context…’ but do not allow me the same laxity of informal language given the context. Instead, you pull out a sentence and argue that I made a statement I did not. Then, you go and make the statements I just illustrated were nonsense above.

    I made no universal statement. I did not make a statement regarding the necessary membership of sets. I stated that it is dishonest to posture. You may not have understood that. But this is your own hasty reading.

    I then defended my position with an argument over your head.

    And I am back to making the same argument in simple terms.

    NOW LETS SEE ABOUT AD HOMINEM(s)
    —Scholar—
    Well, I don’t see that as an insult. I don’t claim to be an academic. I don’t claim to be any thing. I claim I am correct. Otherwise that would mean I made an appeal to authority, which would be a fallacy. My arguments stand or they don’t, and they stand.

    —Buffoon—
    Says the guy who just made a clown of himself, did so with passion, did so under the cover of ad hominems.

    –Falling back—

    I didn’t make a mistake. My entire argument stands. I am good at what I do. Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it.

    Curt

  • The Truth: Making Honest Can't VS Should Arguments


    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.

    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.

    CLARITY

    Truth: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Honest: Testimonial truth. Speaking truthfully.
    Under testimonial truth, Honestly and Truthfully are synonymous.

    CONTEXT:
    Diplomats should not posture that they have the capacity to act, and choose not to act under the cover of justifications, when they have no capacity to act. This is dishonest. Politics is a dishonest business.

    ———-
    –“THE TRUTH: MAKING HONEST CAN’T VS SHOULD ARGUMENTS–

    If you’re making a “CAN’T” argument, then just admit it’s because you can’t. If you’re making a “SHOULD or SHOULDN’T” argument, then state why you should or shouldn’t. But if you’re making a can’t argument while saying it’s because you shouldn’t, then that’s not truth that’s deception.
    It’s true that you CAN’T hold Russia accountable for attacking Ukraine, breaking the postwar consensus, and restarting nuclear proliferation, but that doesn’t me you shouldn’t.

    Truth is true. Lie is Lie. Unknown is Unknown. It’s not complicated.
    ———–

    Caine conveniently reduced the scope of the argument to the first sentence in order to remove the information necessary to render the argument correspondent with reality. (Usually this is merely the error of novices, or people who don’t read the entire argument; but it falls under the category of either a fallacy -straw man- or a deception – selective inclusion of information in the argument. I assume that this is merely the error of a novice. As such cain is applying the technique of formal languages to correspondent and natural languages. This is a common error of ‘logicism’ (that is the word Max was looking for). I categorize all these kinds of errors as ’empty verbalisms’. But Max was attempting to say the same thing. (I am more patient – the curse of aspie-ness.)

    —” If one can not do something (it is not reasonably possible)” is no different from “shouldn’t” in the vast majority of cases when people utter those words.—-

    This is yet another fallacy given that the counter argument that Cain put forward was a fallacy of formal language, minus the information necessary for it to be correspondent – then you Greg, counter with an argument to normative speech.

    So now we have gone from a correspondent argument, to an internally consistent argument to a normative usage argument. Now, I suspect that in the end, Neither Cain nor Greg is probably aware of the different properties of these systems and you are justifying intuition not formal criticism.

    I made a rhetorical statement, because i do not make verbalist statements. I am an active opponent of logicism as psuedoscientific when applied outside of formal bounds. I’m an operationalist
    ———–
    I didnt make an absolute statement now did I?
    ———-

    Nope. No hole there at all. Rock solid.

    NOW LETS LOOK AT YOUR ARGUMENTS

    —If Nuclear war is unacceptable for you then in this context it’s both Can’t and Impossible Max, there he can muse on his Moral Should or not, Be or not to be all day long, 24/7—

    FULLY EXPANDED:
    “If you can conduct nuclear war then
    you cant conduct nuclear war and
    its impossible to conduct nuclear war
    but you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. LETS BE MORE CHARITABLE

    Nuclear war is unacceptable. (Meaning you prefer not to conduct nuclear war.)
    AND
    You can conduct nuclear war, but you prefer not to.
    OR
    You can’t conduct nuclear war, and it’s immaterial whether you prefer to or not.

    “Can’t physically” != “Prefer not to.”

    WELL THAT DOESN”T WORK. SO LETS SEE WHAT ELSE WE HAVE

    … But really we just get back to the central argument which is that you’re holding a double standard. You allow yourself the laxity of informal language with ‘…in this context…’ but do not allow me the same laxity of informal language given the context. Instead, you pull out a sentence and argue that I made a statement I did not. Then, you go and make the statements I just illustrated were nonsense above.

    I made no universal statement. I did not make a statement regarding the necessary membership of sets. I stated that it is dishonest to posture. You may not have understood that. But this is your own hasty reading.

    I then defended my position with an argument over your head.

    And I am back to making the same argument in simple terms.

    NOW LETS SEE ABOUT AD HOMINEM(s)
    —Scholar—
    Well, I don’t see that as an insult. I don’t claim to be an academic. I don’t claim to be any thing. I claim I am correct. Otherwise that would mean I made an appeal to authority, which would be a fallacy. My arguments stand or they don’t, and they stand.

    —Buffoon—
    Says the guy who just made a clown of himself, did so with passion, did so under the cover of ad hominems.

    –Falling back—

    I didn’t make a mistake. My entire argument stands. I am good at what I do. Sorry. Just how it is. Get over it.

    Curt