Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • RENT SEEKING In its original sense, rent seeking is the act of gaining partial o

    RENT SEEKING

    In its original sense, rent seeking is the act of gaining partial ownership of land in order to gain control of a part of its production.

    In government it is the act of gaining privileges, redistribution or partial monopolies.

    In its broadest sense it is the act of obtaining some sort if claim on the productivity of others rather than producing something ones self, or through voluntary exchange.

    We all seek rents. We all seek opportunity for benefitting from either the actions of our organizations, the actions of others, or the grant of state state monopolies. Women seek mates as monetary rents and men to ease the burden of childrearing. We all seek rents. We could argue that rent seeking is the primary incentive for cooperation. Because so few of us are productive enough through direct exchange of our efforts.

    The only rent thats totally moral is interest. Interest is free of involuntary transfer.

    Interest, in the sense that we rent money to others, contrary to our superstitions, is moral.

    Now, It is possible to seek rents via interest. Either through usury or through leveraging the state’s fiat money.

    One can collect interest on production. On can collect interest on consumption. Neither of these things is necessary. Both are voluntary. Neither produce negative externalities. They create whole sequences of positive externalities.

    But collecting interest on externalities is immoral if it creates externalities that produce involuntary transfers.

    Rothbards ghetto ethics actually encourage involuntary transfers. Under the false presumption that the market will solve the problem through competition. But Since all things being equal, profit from externalities is greater than the same loan without externalities, just the opposite is true. The market will encourage externalities.

    Also, ghetto ethics assume that judges will not hold people accountable for those externalities and require restitution of them. But they have and will. Because it is consistent with the ethics of property to do so.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-24 11:56:00 UTC

  • ruth·less /ˈro͞oTHləs/ Adjective Having or showing no pity or compassion for oth

    ruth·less

    /ˈro͞oTHləs/

    Adjective

    Having or showing no pity or compassion for others. feeling or showing no mercy;

    Synonyms

    merciless – pitiless – unmerciful – remorseless

    Propertarian translation: disregard for externalities. Different from ‘cruel’ which is to intentionally cause externalities.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-23 05:49:00 UTC

  • FOR MY UKRAINIAN FRIENDS: THE MEANING OF “GEEK, NERD AND DORK” 🙂

    FOR MY UKRAINIAN FRIENDS: THE MEANING OF “GEEK, NERD AND DORK” 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-17 08:56:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: A DEFINITION OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY (From a posting I made els

    PROPERTARIANISM: A DEFINITION OF INTELLECTUAL HONESTY

    (From a posting I made elsewhere)

    Intellectual Honesty means, in practice, that in any argumentative or persuasive discourse, when given an incentive for deception, either of yourself and/or others, that you avoid such deception at all times. Or more simply, arguing to win, or to avoid blame, rather than arguing in pursuit of objective truth.

    And objective truth means, that among peers, citizens or shareholders, that you will refrain from self benefit, at a cost to others through weak argument.

    1. The Problem Of Antiquated Language.

    The term ‘intellectual honesty’ is somewhat confusing. That is because our language is still antiquated. Our language is stil antiquated because we use moral terms with religious origins that rely upon norms, rather than propertarian terms with commercial origins that rely upon property. Because our morals are, universally, statements about property – when property is defined in its natural rather than legal sense. When we use propertarian terms, we can remove the obscurity cause by the imprecision of moral language, and see the voluntary and involuntary transfers that occur in any interaction between humans. Propertarian language is to morality, as the language of physical science is to human perception. Human emotions are reactions to changes in the state of property. And human political conflict is a reaction to changes in the perceived ‘fair’ definitions of property. And definitinos of fair property are determined by reproductive behavior and signaling, and therefore vary by class and gender.

    2. Morality.

    Morality is the term we use for stealing from, or failing to contribute to, the commons. Morals are, universally, a normative portfolio of prohibitions on stealing from the commons. Where the commons can be defined as anything from physical property, to the habituated common property that we call ‘norms’. Incentives then, can come from more than selfish benefits. In other words, morality varies by the various definitions of the commons. Notoriously conservatives place high value on the normative commons, and progressives discount it entirely. However, intellectual honesty requires that we accomodate for these moral differences. Most public

    3. Externalities

    In any debate, (economics and politics in particular) there are unknowns. In economics we know much less than economists suggest with their arguments. In part, that’s because of the scientistic error, or the error of positivism: We only have reasonably good data since 1945, and arguably, all economic data from that point onward is simply the effect of US Military and commercial dominance working its way through the world economy – and nothing else. Secondly, there are siginficant ways in which our societies are impacted by monetary policy, and some of them are positive (risk taking) and some of them are negative (fragility, overbreeding, overconsumption). These impacts are called externalities. Since externalities actually benefit some and harm others, and since these benefits and harms favor different political groups, policies are a source of conflict. And because these matters are complicated, and impossible to prove mathematically, then even the best (nobel prize winners included) often confuse a preference for one set of externalities with a truth about economic statements.

    4. So, intellectual honesty requires consideration of more than just avoiding PERSONAL incentives, but moral and political externalities. And as such, an intellectually honest statement must include the following avoidances.

    a) your ignorance vs knowledge

    b) your likelihood of error in reasoning

    c) your personal incentive to fool yourself or others

    d) your preferences for moral biases.

    e) your preferences for externalities

    The problem with most intellectual debates is a failure to account for the full scope of a thru e.

    5. Propertarian Language – Paying for right of free speech

    In Propertarianism we would argue that intellectual honesty means that you forgo the opportunity to use deception, and suppress the human natural instinct for deception, and thereby pay for your right of free speech. As such free speech is property, gained through constant payment, by forgoing opportunities for self benefit – including the most simplistic psychic rewards from winning arguments, to the most sophisticated achievement of wealth and power.

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2013-02-15 07:41:00 UTC

  • What Are Some Good Examples Of Intellectual Honesty?

    Intellectual Honesty means, in practice, that  in any argumentative or persuasive discourse, when given an incentive for deception, either of yourself and/or others, that you avoid such deception at all times.   Or more simply, arguing to win, or to avoid blame, rather than arguing in pursuit of objective truth. 

    And objective truth means, that among peers, citizens or shareholders, that you will self benefit, at a cost to others through deception.

    (PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOUR WARNING)

    1. Morality. 
    Morality is the term we use for stealing from, or failing to contribute to, the commons. Morals are, universally,  a normative portfolio of prohibitions  on stealing from the commons.  Where the commons can be defined as anything from physical property, to the habituated common property that we call ‘norms’.  Incentives then, can come from more than selfish benefits. In other words, morality varies by the various definitions of the commons.  Notoriously conservatives place high value on the normative commons, and progressives discount it entirely.

    2) Externalities
    In any debate, (economics and politics in particular) there are unknowns.  In economics we know must less than economists suggest with their arguments.  We only have reasonably good data since 1945, and arguably, all economic data from that point onward is simply the effect of US Military and commercial dominance working its way across the world.  And nothing else.  Secondly, there are siginficant ways in which our societies are impacted, and some of them are positive (risk taking) and some of them are negative (fragility, overbreeding, overconsumption). These are called externalities. Since externalities actually benefit some and harm others, and since these benefits and harms favor different political groups, policies are a source of conflict. Because these matters are complicated, even the best (nobel prize winners included) often confuse a preference with a truth.

    3) So, intellectual honesty requires consideration of
    a) your ignorance vs knowledge
    b) your likelihood of error in reasoning
    c) your personal incentive to fool yourself or others
    d) your preferences for moral biases.
    e) your preferences for externalities
    The problem with most intellectual debates is a failure to account for the full scope of a thru e.

    4. Antiquated Language.
    The term ‘intellectual honesty’ is somewhat confusing. That is because our language is still antiquated. Our language is stil antiquated because we use moral terms with religious origins that rely upon norms, rather than propertarian terms with commercial origins that rely upon property.  Even when our morals are, universally, statements about property.  When we use propertarian terms, we can remove the obscurity of moral language, and see the voluntary and involuntary transfers that occur in any interaction between humans.  Propertarian language is to morality, as the language of physical science is to human perception.  Human emotions are reactions to changes in the state of property. And human political conflict is a reaction to changes in the perceived ‘fair’ definitions of property.  And definitinos of fair property are determined by reproductive behavior and signaling, and therefore vary by class and gender.

    5. Propertarian Language – Paying for right of free speech
    In Propertarianism we would argue that intellectual honesty means that you forgo the opportunity to use deception, and suppress the human natural instinct for deception, and thereby pay for your right of free speech.  As such free speech is property, gained through constant payment, by forgoing opportunities for self benefit – including the most simplistic psychic rewards from winning arguments, to the most sophisticated achievement of wealth and power.

    (END PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOR WARNING)  🙂

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-examples-of-intellectual-honesty

  • What Are Some Good Examples Of Intellectual Honesty?

    Intellectual Honesty means, in practice, that  in any argumentative or persuasive discourse, when given an incentive for deception, either of yourself and/or others, that you avoid such deception at all times.   Or more simply, arguing to win, or to avoid blame, rather than arguing in pursuit of objective truth. 

    And objective truth means, that among peers, citizens or shareholders, that you will self benefit, at a cost to others through deception.

    (PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOUR WARNING)

    1. Morality. 
    Morality is the term we use for stealing from, or failing to contribute to, the commons. Morals are, universally,  a normative portfolio of prohibitions  on stealing from the commons.  Where the commons can be defined as anything from physical property, to the habituated common property that we call ‘norms’.  Incentives then, can come from more than selfish benefits. In other words, morality varies by the various definitions of the commons.  Notoriously conservatives place high value on the normative commons, and progressives discount it entirely.

    2) Externalities
    In any debate, (economics and politics in particular) there are unknowns.  In economics we know must less than economists suggest with their arguments.  We only have reasonably good data since 1945, and arguably, all economic data from that point onward is simply the effect of US Military and commercial dominance working its way across the world.  And nothing else.  Secondly, there are siginficant ways in which our societies are impacted, and some of them are positive (risk taking) and some of them are negative (fragility, overbreeding, overconsumption). These are called externalities. Since externalities actually benefit some and harm others, and since these benefits and harms favor different political groups, policies are a source of conflict. Because these matters are complicated, even the best (nobel prize winners included) often confuse a preference with a truth.

    3) So, intellectual honesty requires consideration of
    a) your ignorance vs knowledge
    b) your likelihood of error in reasoning
    c) your personal incentive to fool yourself or others
    d) your preferences for moral biases.
    e) your preferences for externalities
    The problem with most intellectual debates is a failure to account for the full scope of a thru e.

    4. Antiquated Language.
    The term ‘intellectual honesty’ is somewhat confusing. That is because our language is still antiquated. Our language is stil antiquated because we use moral terms with religious origins that rely upon norms, rather than propertarian terms with commercial origins that rely upon property.  Even when our morals are, universally, statements about property.  When we use propertarian terms, we can remove the obscurity of moral language, and see the voluntary and involuntary transfers that occur in any interaction between humans.  Propertarian language is to morality, as the language of physical science is to human perception.  Human emotions are reactions to changes in the state of property. And human political conflict is a reaction to changes in the perceived ‘fair’ definitions of property.  And definitinos of fair property are determined by reproductive behavior and signaling, and therefore vary by class and gender.

    5. Propertarian Language – Paying for right of free speech
    In Propertarianism we would argue that intellectual honesty means that you forgo the opportunity to use deception, and suppress the human natural instinct for deception, and thereby pay for your right of free speech.  As such free speech is property, gained through constant payment, by forgoing opportunities for self benefit – including the most simplistic psychic rewards from winning arguments, to the most sophisticated achievement of wealth and power.

    (END PHILOSOPHICAL RIGOR WARNING)  🙂

    https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-good-examples-of-intellectual-honesty

  • MAXISMS: NEW TERMS A) “Bunny Boiler” See fatal attraction. B) “Dormant Sociopath

    MAXISMS: NEW TERMS

    A) “Bunny Boiler”

    See fatal attraction.

    B) “Dormant Sociopath”

    Self explanatory

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-20 21:39:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN TERMINOLOGY: STATE AND GOVERNMENT ARE NOT SYNONYMS THE PROBLEM IS NO

    LIBERTARIAN TERMINOLOGY: STATE AND GOVERNMENT ARE NOT SYNONYMS

    THE PROBLEM IS NOT GOVERNMENT: THE PROBLEM IS THE STATE.

    One of the problems we face in the libertarian movement is the confusion between the terms “state” and “government”. A government can consist of a constitution enumerating property rights, a private judiciary, and a volunteer militia. This government need not assist in the concentration of capital into infrastructure. It needs only to define a monopoly of property rights, and to provide the means by which to evolve that definition via the evolution of the common law along with the means of evading property rights that evolve along with the market .

    When we use the term “state”, we refer to a bureaucracy that holds a monopoly on the use of violence and which holds a means by which to arbitrarily redefine property rights, and to confiscate and make use of property.

    Our alternatives to the state rely on a formally articulated property rights and obligations, private judiciaries, competing insurance companies that provide all of the services we attribute to the monopoly that is the state, and private institutions (like stock markets) that concentrate capital for the purpose of creating infrastructure.

    Libertarianism does not suggest solutions for creating a social order – the ability to cooperate at scale – that are without “government”. Even the anarchic program relies upon articulated private property rights – a government of norms, meaning informal but not formal institutions.

    Instead, Libertarians argue against the “state” because it is a fictitious representation of a collective will that is better able to provide for wants than is the market. When in fact, the state is a vehicle by which a class of individuals profits by stealing from some constituencies to give to others.

    We argue that the products of modernity exist because of the market, and that this prosperity exists in spite of statist governments who plunder us, not because of such statist governments.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-16 20:15:00 UTC

  • A DEFINITION OF THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY “Liberty is the freedom to do what you wis

    A DEFINITION OF THE ETHICS OF LIBERTY

    “Liberty is the freedom to do what you wish with yourself and the property that you have obtained by voluntary exchange or homesteading, where such use of your body and your property causes no involuntary transfers from others, either indirectly or directly by asymmetry of knowledge, fraud, theft, or violence, except for the single involuntary transfer we sanction in order to create the evolutionary market, and the evolutionary market’s benefits of increasing variety, and declining price: competition.”

    – Curt Doolittle

    This definition of the ethics of liberty is (I think) complete and correct. The Rothbardian definition of property is incomplete and therefore incorrect. It fails to account for the totality of demonstrated human behavioral preference regarding property. And that failure explains the rejection of Rothbardian Ethics as immoral. Rothbard’s error is similar to the reasons that Misesian Praxeology is incomplete and therefore incorrect when it claims apodeictic certainty. Mises failed to account for opportunity costs in praxeology. Possibly because doing so would have undermined his arguments. However, the only thing that changes if we complete Misesian Praxeology and Rothbardian Ethics is that we end up with Aristocratic warrior and the high trust society rather than the ethics of the Ghetto and Bazaar and the low trust society.

    (Reposted from a comment I made elsewhere)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-01-16 13:13:00 UTC

  • A Definition Of HBD Human Bio Diversity (At The Request Of HBD Chick.)

    DEFINITION OF HBD: THAT RESEARCH PROGRAM WE CALL “HUMAN BIO DIVERSITY” HUMAN BIO-DIVERSITY: “The study of heritable human genetic differences and the variation in distribution of those differences within human populations that show affinity for one another. And where those affinities express themselves as political, social, familial, and personal institutions, behaviors, abilities and preferences. And where those expressions of differences have economic, institutional, and normative consequences, and where those consequences cause economic and political competition and conflict. HBD is an attempt to understand the source of differences in modes and methods of human cooperation due to biological and normative differences.” – Curt Doolittle