Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • OPERATIONALISM UNDER PROPERTARIANISM RENDERS POSTMODERNIST, CRITIQUE, AND KANTIA

    OPERATIONALISM UNDER PROPERTARIANISM RENDERS POSTMODERNIST, CRITIQUE, AND KANTIAN ARGUMENTS IMPOSSIBLE.

    LAUNDERING: Laundering actions and individuals via aggregation into symbols, objects and entities

    LOADING: Loading with emotional or moral sentiments

    FRAMING: Framing by selection of causes and properties

    OVERLOADING: Overloading by production of a multitude of

    CRITIQUE: Using all of the above to defend a straw man by attacking with overloading, framing, loading and laundering. An elaborate means of distraction from a hidden agenda.

    POSTMODERNISM: an attempt to conflate fact and value, such that value distorts fact.

    KANTIAN: an attempt to justify moral authority independent of experience.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-15 09:49:00 UTC

  • WHEN I SAY “MERE VERBALISMS” I MEAN: “MEANINGLESS FALLACIES” (worth repeating) –

    WHEN I SAY “MERE VERBALISMS” I MEAN: “MEANINGLESS FALLACIES”

    (worth repeating)

    –“…many of the questions asked about social and philosophical subjects will be found to be meaningless when examined from the point of operations.”– Bridgeman.

    1) Acquisitiveness as necessary for life.

    2) Cooperation and negative expression: the prohibition on free riding.

    3) The prevention of free riding as an incentive to produce.

    4) Property as a positive expression of the prohibition on free riding.

    5) Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchanged, free of negative externality.

    6) The Common law as a means of evolving property rights and the prevention of free riding as technology expands.

    7) Operationalism as the test of truth in political, ethical and moral expression.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-15 05:05:00 UTC

  • Requirements for Voluntary Cooperation

    (worth repeating)

    [W]e are only ‘voluntarily cooperating’ if we have a choice to cooperate or not. We use the term ‘cooperate’, originating with human voluntary cooperation, and by analogy apply it to other creatures who simulate voluntary cooperation. But, how many of those creatures voluntarily cooperate, and how many of them only appear to, and possess no sentience (volition) at all? What is required of for voluntary cooperation?

    REQUIREMENTS
    – The capacity for shared intent.
    – The capacity to determine if shared intent is beneficial or not.
    – The capacity to choose to invest in that shared intent or not.
    – The capacity to signal consent to shared intent.
    – The capacity to punish defectors / cheaters, whether by refusal of future cooperation, punishment, or death.

    So while it is true that verbal language is not required, signaling is. And that’s enough.

    As far as I know, if you cannot choose, consent, and punish defectors then its not voluntary cooperation.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • Requirements for Voluntary Cooperation

    (worth repeating)

    [W]e are only ‘voluntarily cooperating’ if we have a choice to cooperate or not. We use the term ‘cooperate’, originating with human voluntary cooperation, and by analogy apply it to other creatures who simulate voluntary cooperation. But, how many of those creatures voluntarily cooperate, and how many of them only appear to, and possess no sentience (volition) at all? What is required of for voluntary cooperation?

    REQUIREMENTS
    – The capacity for shared intent.
    – The capacity to determine if shared intent is beneficial or not.
    – The capacity to choose to invest in that shared intent or not.
    – The capacity to signal consent to shared intent.
    – The capacity to punish defectors / cheaters, whether by refusal of future cooperation, punishment, or death.

    So while it is true that verbal language is not required, signaling is. And that’s enough.

    As far as I know, if you cannot choose, consent, and punish defectors then its not voluntary cooperation.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev Ukraine

  • INTERESTING: “KNOW”, “KNOWING” and “KNOWLEDGE” AS TERMS OF OBSCURANTISM. Possess

    INTERESTING: “KNOW”, “KNOWING” and “KNOWLEDGE” AS TERMS OF OBSCURANTISM.

    Possession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, throu axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity.

    The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency.

    Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there.

    Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception.

    But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action.

    One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge.

    I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-13 12:06:00 UTC

  • Aphorisms are informationally dense. But argumentatively parsimonious. And they

    Aphorisms are informationally dense. But argumentatively parsimonious.

    And they are very hard to craft. They must ring true.

    The secret is that they must be well constructed sets.

    As well constructed sets, they are self evident.

    And composing well constructed sets, requires knowledge of construction.

    Not mere knowledge of use.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-07 05:06:00 UTC

  • DEFINING THICK HUMANITARIAN, ARISTOCRATIC SCIENTIFIC, AND THIN PARASITIC LIBERTA

    DEFINING THICK HUMANITARIAN, ARISTOCRATIC SCIENTIFIC, AND THIN PARASITIC LIBERTARIANISM AS A SPECTRUM.

    “Thick and Luxurious , Scientific and Sufficient, and Thin and insufficient.”

    I haven’t really spent much time attacking the BHL/Humanitarian/Left libertarians because their arguments are moral, emotional, and aspirational, but not rational, propertarian, and empirical. There really isn’t anything substantive to attack other than their lack of rational, propertarian, and empirical arguments in favor of their moral intuitions. I can’t attack sentiments. Right now, they are simply saying that luxuries are nice to have. They say nothing about how to select when we may or may not have them without creating negative externalities.

    I’m actually kind of impressed at how well Tucker is framing his argument. I originally found it weak but he’s honed it a bit and it’s getting there. Like all the left libertarians, he has no rational, propertarian, or empirical argument. But he, like most left libertarians, does have a criticism of ‘brutalists’ as ‘insufficient’. Now, he doesn’t say ‘insufficient for what’. But I agree with the left libertarians that rothbardian ghetto ethics are insufficient. I just argue that they are insufficient for the formation of a polity reliant upon the common law for dispute resolution in the absence of a state. ANd moreover, that sufficiency for formation of such a polity is less than the luxuries that left libertarians demand.

    This is the key difference between rothbardians, my ‘middle ground’, and the BHL left libertarianism. That is, that there are necessary and sufficient institutions for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state. But that BHL is advocating luxuries that are not necessary. As such, one can only institutionalize formally, in the common law, that which is both necessary and sufficient. But BHL’s luxuries REQUIRE A GOVERNMENT, a body that negotiates contracts for the commons, bound by rules of ‘calculability, volition, and operationalism’ as well as the law.

    And, now that I’ve attacked the rothbardian “Brutalist” position for six months as an antagonist, I’ve been able to produce pretty damning criticisms and solutions that the BHL’s have not.

    So I can move away from critic and into solution provider. it’s time to start rolling out the positioning of the different libertarian arguments in Propertarian terms. :

    1) Necessary and insufficient (Thin, Rothbardian – Ghetto Libertarianism – Brutalists)

    2) Necessary and sufficient (Scientific, Aristocratic Liberty – Aristocratic Egalitarians – Propertarians.)

    3) Necessary, sufficient, and preferential. (Thick, Left/Classical Liberalism – BHL’s – Humanitarians.)

    It took me a lot longer to synthesize the argument than I thought it would. It’s really only been in the past month that I’ve understood how to really unite the movement with an analytical argument that’s practicable (implementable).

    1) “Thin” Rothbardianism may be necessary but it’s insufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity.

    2) Aristocratic egalitarianism is both necessary and sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity under the rule of law. I say nothing about preferences. Only about that which is necessary for the formation of a polity in the absence of the state.

    3) “Thick” Humanitarian Libertarianism is a preference for luxuries that require a government if not a state – and some formal argument to constrain it from the classical liberal fallacies.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-28 04:51:00 UTC

  • Operationalism, by which I mean, strict construction from a sequence of descript

    Operationalism, by which I mean, strict construction from a sequence of descriptive actions, solves so many philosophical problems that are no more than artifacts of obscurant language.

    Chief among them the fallacy of Natural Rights, and the fallacy of aggression.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-25 05:18:00 UTC

  • REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION (worth repeating) We are only ‘voluntaril

    REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION

    (worth repeating)

    We are only ‘voluntarily cooperating’ if we have a choice to cooperate or not. We use the term ‘cooperate’, originating with human voluntary cooperation, and by analogy apply it to other creatures who simulate voluntary cooperation.

    But, how many of those creatures voluntarily cooperate, and how many of them only appear to, and possess no sentience (volition) at all? What is required of for voluntary cooperation?

    REQUIREMENTS

    – The capacity for shared intent.

    – The capacity to determine if shared intent is beneficial or not.

    – The capacity to choose to invest in that shared intent or not.

    – The capacity to signal consent to shared intent.

    – The capacity to punish defectors / cheaters, whether by refusal of future cooperation, punishment, or death.

    So while it is true that verbal language is not required, signaling is. And that’s enough.

    As far as I know, if you cannot choose, consent, and punish defectors then its not voluntary cooperation.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 07:22:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANISM libertarian lih-ber-tair’-ee-un An individual who demonstrates a

    LIBERTARIANISM

    libertarian lih-ber-tair’-ee-un

    An individual who demonstrates a preference for one or more of the definitions of Libertarianism.

    Libertarianism lih-ber-tair’-ee-un-ih’-zum (noun)

    –“Roderick Long defines libertarianism as “any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals”, whether “voluntary association” takes the form of the free market or of communal co-operatives.”—

    However, Rod Long’s definition, by using the term ‘voluntary association’ is imprecise because it does not contain the purpose or consequences of that allocation of property to individuals who can form voluntary associations. That purpose is that individuals can associate and voluntarily organize production in an expanding division of knowledge and labor, and that individuals contribute to production what they can, as they wish. Unless property is allocated to individuals, then the voluntary organization of production is impossible. And the voluntary adaptation of production to the multitudinous changes in scarcity and preference is impossible.

    CAUSES OF LIBERTARIAN PREFERENCES

    1) SENTIMENT: A sentiment giving precedence to individual liberty above the competing sentiments of care-taking and order — which are the respective priorities of left and right.

    2) POLITICAL BIAS: A range of political biases that express the precedence for liberty as the freedom from organized coercion through the minimization or elimination of monopolistic government — and therefore maximizing the self organizing civic virtues and norms.

    3) ECONOMIC BIAS: An economic philosophy that seeks to maximize human prosperity by increasing the opportunity for entrepreneurial trial and error by advocating the inviolability of individual property rights, free trade, and sound money.

    4) GENERAL POLITICAL PHILOSOPHY: A set of political philosophies which give liberty (freedom from coercion) the highest moral preference, over all other moral preferences, and seek to minimize both government and reduce or eliminate the state by distributing all property rights to individuals who then voluntarily organize production and distribution.

    5) INSTITUTIONAL FRAMEWORK: An framework of political institutions that seeks to replace the monopoly of the abstract state and its attendant bureaucracy with private formal institutions and public informal institutions that are subject to the pressures of market competition.

    i) Classical Liberalism – state, government of divided powers, and private property under common law.

    ii) Minimal Statism – minimum state and government and private property under common law

    iii) Private government – no state, private government, and private property under private law

    iv) Anarchy – no state, no government, and private property under common law.

    Each of these models relies upon an explicitly articulated political philosophy that reduces all rights to property rights, where property has been obtained by the processes of homesteading, manufacture, and voluntary exchange, which are necessary for peaceful human cooperation because they facilitate the emergence of a market for goods and services where prices convey information that we can use to determine our actions.

    These rights are enforced by some variation of the common law, and are inviolable and unalterable by the state or government. This leaves the function of government limited to the facilitation of investments in the commons, and the resolution of disputes between groups and classes.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-12 07:15:00 UTC