Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • THE GREAT DECEPTION : THE FALLACY OF AGGRESSION Aggression is a deception. A con

    THE GREAT DECEPTION : THE FALLACY OF AGGRESSION

    Aggression is a deception. A convenient libertine ruse, to define property as that which is aggressable against, rather than property as that which people instinctually defend, as a violation of the terms of cooperation necessary for any species that does cooperate: free riding.

    Aggression by definition legalizes unethical and immoral actions. As such it is, incontestably, the definition of LIBERTINISM , and NOT libertarianism.

    I really can’t understand how we were misled by this fallacy for so long. Other than out of desperation and natural cognitive biases endemic to the autistic end of the spectrum.

    Liberty is like truth: there is always more of it to be had, as we constantly innovate our means of cooperation. It’s not a state. It’s a process.

    It is a lie, a deceptoin, a fraud, a moral crime against men who whish to be free, to perpetuate the fallacy that property is defined by aggression rather than transgression defined by property.

    The means of transgression is immaterial.

    The only rule we need is property.

    The origin of property is the prevention of free riding.

    Free riding, as in, the imposition of costs, the imposition of involutary transfer, or any other means other than the fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of property.

    Period.

    Rothbard is dead. His ideas are dead. His movement is dead. And we should spit on his grave for the damage he has done.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism:

    1) Property rights are obtained by reciprocal insurance of one anther’s property by the promise of violence to defend it.

    2) Property is that which humans demonstrate as their property: that which they act to obtain by homesteading or voluntary exchange, with the expectation of possession.

    3) Morality is objective and is prohibition on the transgression of the property of another : the necessary prohibition on free riding for any cooperative organism.

    4) The law must sufficiently mirror known morality at any given time to suppress demand for an authority to suppress immoral actions, or the violence that results from immoral actions.

    Welcome to aristocracy. We take all comers. But not libertines. They’re free riders. Immoral and unethical by definition.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-20 15:02:00 UTC

  • Operationalism Is Synonymous With Human Action

    [I] guess, I just assumed that it was so obvious that I didn’t need to say it. But apparently it’s not. So why would you try to rely on all this Kantian nonsense, in order to justify human action? Instead, why wouldn’t you base the philosophy of human action, on human action? What is the difference between, say, justifying something aprioristically, and simply stating that it appears that we are able to use description, deduction, induction, abduction given the amount of information available to us. But that deduction is possible only when describing constant relations? What is the difference between stating, the obvious falsehood, that categorical descriptions of human actions are axiomatic, as in mathematics, and therefore not bounded by reality, rather than that any general description of human actions is theoretical, parsimonious, with broad explanatory power, but remains bounded by reality? Why would one want to appeal to an authority using verbal contrivances, instead of honest descriptions of human actions? Why would you base the theoretical system upon which we analyze human actions on anything other than human actions? Especially when to do so you must misrepresent that which is ‘axiom-like’ but not axiomatic, as that which it is not? Unless you were trying to justify an appeal to an authority? To grant to that which is empirical, scientific and theoretical, the authoritative content of mathematics and logic, which because both are axiomatic, are fully tautological and unbounded by reality? Misesian reasoning, and rothbardian ethics, could be simply an intellectual error. Or it could be a dishonest use of obscurantism to hide the fact that human actions are observable. Even introspective actions are observable by the actor who makes them, and if communicated, observable by others. And as observable, those actions are empirical. Theories may be very hard or very weak. Some theories are very hard, in that under most conditions they are true. But because of time and space, no economic theories are axiomatic. They are bounded by reality. This does not mean that they need to be tested. That is a fallacy of positivism. It means that there are always the possibility of conditions under which they may or may not apply, for any given period of time. In axiomatic systems this is never true. That is what defines them as axiomatic. Operationalism solves the problem of reducing all statements to empirical (observable) and therefore sympathetically testable terms. Praxeology is either an empirical science for the purpose of determining the rationality of human actions, and the voluntary exchange of property, and therefore it is the test of moral action – or it is another of the many, many, cosmopolitan and continental fallacies. If you cannot explain human actions as human actions, then you are either unsure of what it is that you speak, or engaging in obscurantist deception. Continental and Cosmopolitan authors were (and are) trying to preserve traditional authority in the face of science, for the purpose of maintaining group homogeneity. We must treat their arguments as specious. Because they are. All we need is property rights, a contract for their fullest expression enforceable under the private, common, law, and the willingness to organize and use violence for the purpose of obtaining the opportunity to construct those property rights, contract, and private common law. Everything else is obscurant nonsense. Science won. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev.

  • Operationalism Is Synonymous With Human Action

    [I] guess, I just assumed that it was so obvious that I didn’t need to say it. But apparently it’s not. So why would you try to rely on all this Kantian nonsense, in order to justify human action? Instead, why wouldn’t you base the philosophy of human action, on human action? What is the difference between, say, justifying something aprioristically, and simply stating that it appears that we are able to use description, deduction, induction, abduction given the amount of information available to us. But that deduction is possible only when describing constant relations? What is the difference between stating, the obvious falsehood, that categorical descriptions of human actions are axiomatic, as in mathematics, and therefore not bounded by reality, rather than that any general description of human actions is theoretical, parsimonious, with broad explanatory power, but remains bounded by reality? Why would one want to appeal to an authority using verbal contrivances, instead of honest descriptions of human actions? Why would you base the theoretical system upon which we analyze human actions on anything other than human actions? Especially when to do so you must misrepresent that which is ‘axiom-like’ but not axiomatic, as that which it is not? Unless you were trying to justify an appeal to an authority? To grant to that which is empirical, scientific and theoretical, the authoritative content of mathematics and logic, which because both are axiomatic, are fully tautological and unbounded by reality? Misesian reasoning, and rothbardian ethics, could be simply an intellectual error. Or it could be a dishonest use of obscurantism to hide the fact that human actions are observable. Even introspective actions are observable by the actor who makes them, and if communicated, observable by others. And as observable, those actions are empirical. Theories may be very hard or very weak. Some theories are very hard, in that under most conditions they are true. But because of time and space, no economic theories are axiomatic. They are bounded by reality. This does not mean that they need to be tested. That is a fallacy of positivism. It means that there are always the possibility of conditions under which they may or may not apply, for any given period of time. In axiomatic systems this is never true. That is what defines them as axiomatic. Operationalism solves the problem of reducing all statements to empirical (observable) and therefore sympathetically testable terms. Praxeology is either an empirical science for the purpose of determining the rationality of human actions, and the voluntary exchange of property, and therefore it is the test of moral action – or it is another of the many, many, cosmopolitan and continental fallacies. If you cannot explain human actions as human actions, then you are either unsure of what it is that you speak, or engaging in obscurantist deception. Continental and Cosmopolitan authors were (and are) trying to preserve traditional authority in the face of science, for the purpose of maintaining group homogeneity. We must treat their arguments as specious. Because they are. All we need is property rights, a contract for their fullest expression enforceable under the private, common, law, and the willingness to organize and use violence for the purpose of obtaining the opportunity to construct those property rights, contract, and private common law. Everything else is obscurant nonsense. Science won. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute. Kiev.

  • PRIVILEGE: TAX THE HELL OUT OF WORKING CHILDLESS WOMEN They are experiencing the

    PRIVILEGE: TAX THE HELL OUT OF WORKING CHILDLESS WOMEN

    They are experiencing the greatest luxury, greatest conspicuous consumption, at the greatest social expense.

    —“Japan has one of the lowest fertility rates in the world, with each woman bearing an average of 1.4 children. At that rate, demographers project a plunge from 127 million people today to 87 million by 2060, sapping the workforce of its vital young workers and putting an enormous strain on state finances. The shrinkage has already begun. In 2013, Japan’s population declined by a record-breaking 244,000 people. All of which has led to some rather creative policy proposals from the Chamber of Commerce, such as retaining 70-year-old’s in the workforce, doubling government expenditures on childcare and encouraging men to ask working women out on a date.”—

    Furthermore, keeping 70 year olds in the work force is an excellent idea. Adding 14 year olds to the work force is a better idea. Growth from demographic expansion is a bad idea. Collapse from demographic contraction is a very, very bad idea.

    No one gets a free ride.

    Tax the hell out of working single women.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-18 04:52:00 UTC

  • Which Is The Basis Of Social Order: The Prohibition On Free Riding Vs The Promotion Of Private Property

    (worth repeating) If I am right, and I think I am, then we just look at private property incorrectly because it’s a positive assertion. But the negative assertion is more informative: free riding. Because it is free riding that mirrors the human moral instincts that evolved with us because they were necessary for cooperation. And while we can suppress free riding (and parasitism) and obtain private property as a defense against the state, in order to form a polity we must also suppress unethical and immoral conduct so that we do not have demand for the state. And to form an anarchic polity free of the state, we must further suppress conspiracy and statism so that those who desire to free ride cannot band together to do so. As such, ‘private property’ is not the basis for society, but the basis for the voluntary organization of, and execution of, production. The suppression of free riding then, is the basis for society, and private property is one of its byproducts. Instead of only codifying private property in law, if we restate all moral instincts as property rights, then we can construct a legal code that mirrors completely the human moral code, and one which, allows both the resolution of differences over property, but also eliminates demand for the state, as well as forbids the formation of a state (monopoly). In this sense, morality, stated as a prohibition on free riding, is the basis for the velocity of cooperation, private property is the basis of the voluntary structure of production, prohibition on unethical and immoral conduct is the basis for a polity, and prohibition on conspiracy to construct a monopoly is the basis for anarchy. And altogether this full spectrum of prohibitions on free riding, delivers us to liberty and the maximum opportunity for prosperity. I think this is the correct analysis.

  • Which Is The Basis Of Social Order: The Prohibition On Free Riding Vs The Promotion Of Private Property

    (worth repeating) If I am right, and I think I am, then we just look at private property incorrectly because it’s a positive assertion. But the negative assertion is more informative: free riding. Because it is free riding that mirrors the human moral instincts that evolved with us because they were necessary for cooperation. And while we can suppress free riding (and parasitism) and obtain private property as a defense against the state, in order to form a polity we must also suppress unethical and immoral conduct so that we do not have demand for the state. And to form an anarchic polity free of the state, we must further suppress conspiracy and statism so that those who desire to free ride cannot band together to do so. As such, ‘private property’ is not the basis for society, but the basis for the voluntary organization of, and execution of, production. The suppression of free riding then, is the basis for society, and private property is one of its byproducts. Instead of only codifying private property in law, if we restate all moral instincts as property rights, then we can construct a legal code that mirrors completely the human moral code, and one which, allows both the resolution of differences over property, but also eliminates demand for the state, as well as forbids the formation of a state (monopoly). In this sense, morality, stated as a prohibition on free riding, is the basis for the velocity of cooperation, private property is the basis of the voluntary structure of production, prohibition on unethical and immoral conduct is the basis for a polity, and prohibition on conspiracy to construct a monopoly is the basis for anarchy. And altogether this full spectrum of prohibitions on free riding, delivers us to liberty and the maximum opportunity for prosperity. I think this is the correct analysis.

  • I don’t try to justify anything. I don’t have to. I might advocate what *I* want

    I don’t try to justify anything. I don’t have to. I might advocate what *I* want. I might help you advocate what *you* want, and help someone else with what *they* want – we have different needs.

    I am perfectly happy if the underclasses engage in mutual reinsurance (socialism). I just don’t want to pay for insurance that I don’t need or want – and which harms me. I am, by my abilities, my own insurance. There is no reason we must possess a monopoly under which we all rely upon the same means of insurance. I think very few of us would rely upon ourselves, and the majority rely upon insurance by others.

    But since I want liberty, to obtain liberty without the state, the only means we have of providing a rational means for the resolution of differences is property and property rights, under organically evolving “common” law, I just need to know what is required of the common law to construct a voluntary polity in the absence of the state.

    This is an empirical question. It’s not a moral one. I do not argue what people SHOULD want. Since what they ‘should’ want and what they ‘do’ want are almost always accurate reflections of their reproductive strategies. I argue instead that given what any group wants, here is how to achieve it under the common law, cooperatively rather than violently – as the state now does.

    That doesn’t mean that you couldn’t replace some sections of that common law with ‘rule-by-man’ institutions within your own group – rather than rule of law under the law. Within your group you’re welcome to. We liberty lovers won’t allow you to force us to participate with you in an ‘involuntary’ organization.

    We won’t allow you means that we will use violence to make sure that you cannot. We’re smarter. That’s the thing, you know.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-05 09:42:00 UTC

  • MORAL REALISM: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING. (pulled out and reposted) Liberta

    MORAL REALISM: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING.

    (pulled out and reposted)

    Libertarianism argues that Non Aggression, (NAP) + Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (IVP) constitute a universal moral natural law. This is ‘almost real’. And any claim that natural rights or natural law exist is to claim moral realism (constant correspondence.)

    Now, I disagree with IVP and NAP, because I have learned that human moral standards are universally higher than that. That no groups exist and can exist by treating internal members as such. And that peoples who use the NAP with outsiders are usually outcast and exterminated.

    However, if we look at universally demonstrated human behaviors, we see that it is quite possible to identify a small number of constant moral constraints upon our action. And that these moral constraints reflect our reproductive strategies – and must. Further, that all cultures may implement more or less of these moral constraints, and that many of these moral constraints are mixed with signaling (which is not a moral constraint, but a signal of commitment to moral constraints – usually ritualistic costs that one must bear). This means that all moral systems include the universal moral rules, a level of adoption of those rules that suits their reproductive structure within the particular moral structure of production available to them, and a body of rituals and signals. And that all moral codes in all groups can be reduced to technical descriptions on the axes I have described.

    If this is true, and I am correct, and I think the evidence suggests that I am correct, then the underlying moral code is on that is in favor of cooperation while prohibiting free riding, where failing to engage in cooperation is also free riding. As such, the underlying moral intuition begins with the prohibition on free riding. Further that depending on a number of environmental variables such as geography and competition, humans will produce predictable moral codes, albeit a wide variety of signals. And yes, the genders differ in the distribution of weights that they give to those underlying moral codes.

    As such, we have finally uncovered the logic and science of morality. And as such, morality is both real, and non arbitrary.

    Thus the only means of moral action we possess is voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange, free of negative externalities, in which we contributed to production. It implies that one cannot refuse a trade that causes one no loss, takes no effort, exposes one to no risk, and benefits another.

    Everyone has something to trade. Even if it’s merely respect for life, property, manners, ethics, morals and rituals. And that is enough to trade for the benefits of the market, and the opportunity to conduct other trades with those who likewise enter into the bargain.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 09:09:00 UTC

  • SOVEREIGNTY BEGINS WITH VIOLENCE, MORALITY IS MADE BY VIOLENCE —“Right is not

    SOVEREIGNTY BEGINS WITH VIOLENCE, MORALITY IS MADE BY VIOLENCE

    —“Right is not the offspring of doctrine, but of power. All laws, commandments, or doctrines as to not doing to another what you do not wish done to you, have no inherent authority whatever, but receive it only from the club, the gallows, and the sword. A man truly free is under no obligation to obey any injunction, human or divine. Obedience is the sign of the degenerate. Disobedience is the stamp of the hero.”—

    If we apply our wealth of violence to the suppression of free riding in all its forms, then we create the most productive and meritocratic moral code for any body of people that is possible.

    But that result is an aristocratic moral code – a meritocratic moral code. Merit is to the disadvantage of the incompetent and degenerate. Christianity is merely a rebellion against aristocracy.

    But unable to suppress aristocracy, and aristocracy uninterested in suppressing christianity, the west was a product of the dialectic between the christians and the actions, habits and traditions of the aristocracy.

    Might makes whatever right it’s wielder chooses to. But there is only one optimum moral principle available to man, to which we all adhere to different degrees: upon choosing not to use violence, and instead to cooperate, we create the problem of free riding. To suppress free riding we create moral rules. To enforce moral rules we create authority. By creating moral rules we create free riding by corruption. To enforce moral rules against free riding by corruption we must suppress the state. To suppress the state requires that we use violence to suppress free riding in all its forms: criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial, and statist.

    Might makes whatever right we choose. One can choose an objectively moral right: the suppression or free riding. Or one can choose one of the many others – all of which institute some form of free riding.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 03:17:00 UTC

  • WHICH IS THE BASIS OF SOCIAL ORDER: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING VS THE PROMOT

    WHICH IS THE BASIS OF SOCIAL ORDER: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING VS THE PROMOTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY

    (worth repeating)

    If I am right, and I think I am, then we just look at private property incorrectly because it’s a positive assertion. But the negative assertion is more informative: free riding. Because it is free riding that mirrors the human moral instincts that evolved with us because they were necessary for cooperation. And while we can suppress free riding (and parasitism) and obtain private property as a defense against the state, in order to form a polity we must also suppress unethical and immoral conduct so that we do not have demand for the state. And to form an anarchic polity free of the state, we must further suppress conspiracy and statism so that those who desire to free ride cannot band together to do so. As such, ‘private property’ is not the basis for society, but the basis for the voluntary organization of, and execution of, production. The suppression of free riding then, is the basis for society, and private property is one of its byproducts. Instead of only codifying private property in law, if we restate all moral instincts as property rights, then we can construct a legal code that mirrors completely the human moral code, and one which, allows both the resolution of differences over property, but also eliminates demand for the state, as well as forbids the formation of a state (monopoly). In this sense, morality, stated as a prohibition on free riding, is the basis for the velocity of cooperation, private property is the basis of the voluntary structure of production, prohibition on unethical and immoral conduct is the basis for a polity, and prohibition on conspiracy to construct a monopoly is the basis for anarchy. And altogether this full spectrum of prohibitions on free riding, delivers us to liberty and the maximum opportunity for prosperity.

    I think this is the correct analysis.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 02:40:00 UTC