Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • UNDER TERNARY LOGIC WE GET “SELLER BEWARE” –BINARY– Under binary logic (of arg

    UNDER TERNARY LOGIC WE GET “SELLER BEWARE”

    –BINARY–

    Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent)

    REJECTION (binary 0)

    Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange.

    Boycott of all exchanges.

    Rejection of exchange.

    CONSENT (binary 1)

    Restitution via court

    Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost)

    Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost)

    –TERNARY–

    But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence)

    VIOLENCE (ternary)

    Restitution via violence

    Transfer via violence.

    Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement

    High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 10:03:00 UTC

  • YES, LAW=MORALITY IF ALL ETHICS ARE REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS (important piec

    YES, LAW=MORALITY IF ALL ETHICS ARE REDUCIBLE TO PROPERTY RIGHTS

    (important piece)

    There is no distinction between legal and moral (criminal, ethical, moral) content in disputes. This fallacy is a central problem of the logic of libertarian property theory.

    The first question is whether we compensate people for defense of property rights (criminal ethical and moral) or expect them to pay those costs even if they cannot participate in production (which I argue is immoral.)

    I argue that this is a mere matter of compensating people via commission on overall production for their action in defense of the means of production (a low transaction cost society where voluntary organization of production is possible). And that people who participate in production and who choose to be involved in production should capture their wealth.

    Our error is in not acknowledging the costs of respecting property rights. Which are very high. And that is why respect for property rights, especially high trust property rights of the protestant northern europeans, is so rare. It’s terribly expensive, even if dramatically more productive.

    Like all fundamental philosophical questions (of which I only know half of a dozen that exist), the central question is either you have a right to reproduce if you cannot support your offspring. Is that immoral and therefore illegal? That question determines whether your arguments are simple and rational or complex and non-rational (incalculable).

    This division of labor and compensation does not require nonsense-bullshit moralizing from continental and cosmopolitan schools of thought (ie:deception, obscurantism, authoritarianism, and loading, framing,) to load and frame the argument. It is merely respect for individual property rights through and through.

    Low property rights with low ethical and moral standards will produce high demand for the state, while high property rights with high ethical and moral standards will produce low demand for the state.

    As such, for any libertarian order, the relationship between law and morality is one-to-one. There is no difference.

    However, it is a practical necessity to pay those who cannot engage in production but who can engage in creating the social, legal and economic means of production, for their efforts. And failing to do so is criminal as well as immoral.

    This approach gives everyone in the society (local polity that facilitates the voluntary organization of production) the same interests: suppression of the predatory state monopoly, while at the same time maintaining parity between law and morality.

    There is no need for emotional loading and framing if you actually do a bit of thinking. But libertarians are often lighter on the discipline of thinking than they let on.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 05:58:00 UTC

  • Comparison Of Libertarian Ethical Systems

    (You can see from this chart how Rothbardianism is immoral. In fact, it’s a a specialization in immorality: the involuntary transfer of property against the will of others.)

    1484716_10152152905747264_1495672552_n
    Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 12.04.21 PM
    Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 12.04.44 PM

  • Comparison Of Libertarian Ethical Systems

    (You can see from this chart how Rothbardianism is immoral. In fact, it’s a a specialization in immorality: the involuntary transfer of property against the will of others.)

    1484716_10152152905747264_1495672552_n
    Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 12.04.21 PM
    Screen Shot 2014-04-02 at 12.04.44 PM

  • Rothbardian Ethics are Parasitic

    1) Ghetto ethics only require that the exchange is voluntary. 2) They do not require that the exchange is productive, only that parties are satisfied. (blackmail for example is not productive.) 3) They do not require fully informed exchange backed by warranty. (they allow lying and cheating and information holding) 4) They do not prohibit profiting from harm, or causing harm (Usury for example.) 5) They do not require that the exchange is free of externality. Parasitic ethics of rothbard require only the first, but the high trust ethics of Protestant require all five criteria. High trust ethics (and human in-group moral instinct) require that we eschew free riding (parasitism) and the only means of doing so, is to require exchanges be internally and externally productive. Under rothbardian ethics it is possible to profit without contribution to production, and to exist entirely parasitically. ie: his ethics are parasitic.

  • Rothbardian Ethics are Parasitic

    1) Ghetto ethics only require that the exchange is voluntary. 2) They do not require that the exchange is productive, only that parties are satisfied. (blackmail for example is not productive.) 3) They do not require fully informed exchange backed by warranty. (they allow lying and cheating and information holding) 4) They do not prohibit profiting from harm, or causing harm (Usury for example.) 5) They do not require that the exchange is free of externality. Parasitic ethics of rothbard require only the first, but the high trust ethics of Protestant require all five criteria. High trust ethics (and human in-group moral instinct) require that we eschew free riding (parasitism) and the only means of doing so, is to require exchanges be internally and externally productive. Under rothbardian ethics it is possible to profit without contribution to production, and to exist entirely parasitically. ie: his ethics are parasitic.

  • A Better And More Logical Libertarian Answer

    (controversy warning) (reposed from original site) [I] would argue that the gay community successfully suppressed the visibility of its promiscuous behavior once the chance for enfranchisement became possible. Furthermore the leadership changed the message from a request for tolerance of public promiscuity to one in favor of equal rights, marriage and stability. With the genetic, or at least in-utero cause of homosexuality identified, the idea of putting youth at risk disappeared – leaving only the problem of promiscuous behavior. [T]he purpose of boycotting is to suppress undesirable behavior in favor of beneficial norms. Marriage is one of our most unnatural states, but most beneficial norms. In fact our moral codes are dependent, first and foremost, upon our family structures – which is why different family structures cannot politically cooperate. Different family structures means different property rights and different demands for state intervention. Since it was promiscuity that violated norms, and the general fear of further attacks on the family that mainly drove resistance, then BOYCOTTING WORKED. That’s important to grasp. BOYCOTTING WORKED BETTER than libertarian universal particularism. WE WERE WERONG. [C]onservatives are right on norms, and we are not. Cosmopolitan (rothbardian) ethics cannot compete against traditional familial ethics. They can only undermine the hight trust society and require that we return to totalitarianism. Freedom requires homogenous ethics. Heterogeneity simply increases the necessary demand for teh state. BOYCOTTING is a necessary device for enforcing the heterogeneity of norms that make the high trust society, and low demand for state intervention possible. That’s just how it is. Period. This isn’t a preference. It’s a logical necessity.

  • A Better And More Logical Libertarian Answer

    (controversy warning) (reposed from original site) [I] would argue that the gay community successfully suppressed the visibility of its promiscuous behavior once the chance for enfranchisement became possible. Furthermore the leadership changed the message from a request for tolerance of public promiscuity to one in favor of equal rights, marriage and stability. With the genetic, or at least in-utero cause of homosexuality identified, the idea of putting youth at risk disappeared – leaving only the problem of promiscuous behavior. [T]he purpose of boycotting is to suppress undesirable behavior in favor of beneficial norms. Marriage is one of our most unnatural states, but most beneficial norms. In fact our moral codes are dependent, first and foremost, upon our family structures – which is why different family structures cannot politically cooperate. Different family structures means different property rights and different demands for state intervention. Since it was promiscuity that violated norms, and the general fear of further attacks on the family that mainly drove resistance, then BOYCOTTING WORKED. That’s important to grasp. BOYCOTTING WORKED BETTER than libertarian universal particularism. WE WERE WERONG. [C]onservatives are right on norms, and we are not. Cosmopolitan (rothbardian) ethics cannot compete against traditional familial ethics. They can only undermine the hight trust society and require that we return to totalitarianism. Freedom requires homogenous ethics. Heterogeneity simply increases the necessary demand for teh state. BOYCOTTING is a necessary device for enforcing the heterogeneity of norms that make the high trust society, and low demand for state intervention possible. That’s just how it is. Period. This isn’t a preference. It’s a logical necessity.

  • LOGIC: A SEQUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIONS : THE ONLY MORAL LOGIC This is where I’ve end

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-constructive/CONSTRUCTIVE LOGIC: A SEQUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIONS : THE ONLY MORAL LOGIC

    This is where I’ve ended up thanks to Constructive Mathematics (Intuitionism, Intuitional Mathematics, Neointuitionism).

    Logic: I apply the same requirement of operational language (strict construction) to logic – the logic of language. Of all the logics, the logic of language is the most misleading. I have the most work to do here. Much to the disappointment of practitioners of formal logic. Most of the mistakes I have come across (particularly in critical rationalism) are caused by erroneous elimination of action from that which depends upon action.

    Math: In mathematics – the logic of names, numbers and relations. This work has been done by the generations before me. They just have not had the moral criticism I have given them as an argumentative weapon before in their attack on ‘magical’ mathematics.

    Physics: It’s already present in the canons of science, and is already universally applied in physics – the logic of causality. There is very little work to be done here other than to cast some branches of physics as non-logical as currently stated.

    Cooperation: I apply the same argument to the logic of cooperation (ethics). Ethics was the easiest problem to solve by the requirement for operational language (strict constructionism).

    i) The world is real, our actions are likewise real within that world.

    ii) There is only one MORAL and ETHICAL epistemological method, and that is the scientific method – or ‘the method’.

    iii) We have invented multiple methodologies of logic that help us isolate certain properties within this method.

    iv) Statements produced by this method are ‘theories’.

    v) Some theories can be logically treated axiomatically even though they are not in fact axioms but theories.

    Knowledge of use is not equal to knowledge of construction.

    MOTIVATIONS: ELIMINATION OF LOADING, FRAMING, DECEPTION, OBSCURANTISM, AND PSEUDOSCIENCE FROM POLITICAL DISCOURSE.

    Law is but another logic. Politics is discourse on law. There is no logical specialization to citizenship save the logic of cooperation and even that specialization will forever be above the masses. If we are to eliminate deception from political discourse, we must eliminate it in all the logics. I was not correct that immorality in language originated with mathematics. Only that mathematical legitimacy was used as a means for expanding pseudoscience.

    Just because something is convenient, if it is immoral, it remains immoral. Obscurantism, platonism, and use without comprehension of construction, are all forms of deception that insert magic and religion into the world.

    Most of these conveniences are easy means of compensating for the problem of reducing any ‘computation’ into the two or three second window of human cognitive ability. However, as long as we can construct from operations, any entity, we can forever use the name of that construction as a function – giving us a shorthand for it that fits within our cognitive window.

    I am sorry for labeling conveniences and contrivances as immoral, despite the cherished mythos that philosophers, logicians and mathematicians have warmed themselves in against the cold of realism. But no one else has yet attacked platonism as immoral. And I’ve done it I think pretty conclusively.

    If you can purvey platonism, then others can equally claim to purvey mysticism, obscurantism, pseudoscience, loading and framing. Because if utility is the only tests, then religion is clearly superior to rational politics, and pseudoscience an effective means of governing (keynesianism), and the mind finds greater comfort in loading, framing, conflation and justifying, than it does in grasping objective reality.

    Sorry, but if you can’t construct it, you don’t understand it. And the reason you don’t understand it is probably a cover for a lie.

    Certainly that’s what’s happened in math and logic. Most of philosophy, continental in particular is deception. Justification. Lie.

    The only moral statements are those under strict construction.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-28 12:45:00 UTC

  • If you want to get rid of mysticism and pseudosciences like freudianism, marxism

    If you want to get rid of mysticism and pseudosciences like freudianism, marxism, scientific socialism, Postmodernism, then you also have to get rid of Continental Philosophy, Cosmopolitan Philosophy, Rights theory, Austrian Economics and Praxeology.

    And if you do that you will also by consequence get rid of mathematical and logical platonism, and the much of cheap mathematical physics.

    That is the price of honest politics.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-11 09:31:00 UTC