Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Polymoralism And Commons

    POLYMORALISM AND COMMONS

    [A]nd of course there are other options: Land can be owned by no one. Land can be owned by one person. Land can be owned by a group of contractual shareholders. Land can be owned by normative shareholders.

    The problem of a commons lies in determining use of a resource that CAN be consumed. However not all resources that are are useful can be consumed tragically. Some resources, and perhaps the most valuable resources are those which we agree NOT to consume. As such, those things we prohibit consumption of. All property consists of prohibitions. Commons consist of universal prohibitions. The tragedy of the commons applies ONLY to unelectable consumption, and the cost of administering unelectable consumption.

    Shareholder agreements universally construct commons, but disallow consumption of those commons except as distributed under the terms of the agreement. So not only can we produce commons by shareholder agreement, nearly all commons are so produced. The problem is not the production of commons, or the constitution of commons or the existence of commons, but that statists license the consumption of commons, and as hoppe has illustrated, distribute the commons (consume it) rather than save it (as did monarchs).

    Parks for example serve as monuments which produce ‘goods’ indefinitely if they are not consumed. We merely need to prevent consumption of the land, in order for the good produced by parks to persist. Of the many kinds of monuments, it is one of the hardest to prevent the consumption of. Because it is the easiest to consume.

    Just as property rights, rule of law, and other norms are expensive monuments to construct, and to persist, without consuming them. And they can be consumed, easily, if we do not prevent their consumption.

    Many norms require high constant costs of observation. Property as an informal institution does. Property rights are merely a legal definition of the norm of property. But the norm of property is produced as are all commons, by requiring a contribution (sacrifice of opportunity) and teh forcible prevention of consumption by that which is not normatively defined.

    This is inescapable since property itself as an institution must be so constructed.

    THE “LIBERTINE” LIBERTARIANS

    [T]he “Libertines” simply try to license unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior by defining away norms. And while some norms may be arbitrary (signals or rituals), those norms that construct and persist commons are not.

    Cosmopolitans just created an elaborate system of pseudo-rationalism to circumvent ethics and morality, in order to justify poly moral in-group-vs out-group morality that renders commons impossible to construct.

    However, the Western competitive advantage over the rest of the world was the trust started by the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, which allowed the aristocracy to form, and which all others in society attempted to imitate not only to obtain status as a reproductive improvement, but because trust did in fact, non-symbolically, but functionally, produce consistently higher returns than non-trust.

    Game. Set. Match. The end of the pseudoscientific century. Libertinism. Cosmopolitanism. Rothbardiansm. Misesianism are just like socialism and neoconservatism, cosmopolitan systems of pseudoscientific propaganda imitating the framing and overloading of abrahamic authoritarianism. Elaborate verbalisms.

    (I have pretty much put a fork in it. Rothbard isn’t just wrong. It’s worse than that.)

    Curt

  • Polymoralism And Commons

    POLYMORALISM AND COMMONS

    [A]nd of course there are other options: Land can be owned by no one. Land can be owned by one person. Land can be owned by a group of contractual shareholders. Land can be owned by normative shareholders.

    The problem of a commons lies in determining use of a resource that CAN be consumed. However not all resources that are are useful can be consumed tragically. Some resources, and perhaps the most valuable resources are those which we agree NOT to consume. As such, those things we prohibit consumption of. All property consists of prohibitions. Commons consist of universal prohibitions. The tragedy of the commons applies ONLY to unelectable consumption, and the cost of administering unelectable consumption.

    Shareholder agreements universally construct commons, but disallow consumption of those commons except as distributed under the terms of the agreement. So not only can we produce commons by shareholder agreement, nearly all commons are so produced. The problem is not the production of commons, or the constitution of commons or the existence of commons, but that statists license the consumption of commons, and as hoppe has illustrated, distribute the commons (consume it) rather than save it (as did monarchs).

    Parks for example serve as monuments which produce ‘goods’ indefinitely if they are not consumed. We merely need to prevent consumption of the land, in order for the good produced by parks to persist. Of the many kinds of monuments, it is one of the hardest to prevent the consumption of. Because it is the easiest to consume.

    Just as property rights, rule of law, and other norms are expensive monuments to construct, and to persist, without consuming them. And they can be consumed, easily, if we do not prevent their consumption.

    Many norms require high constant costs of observation. Property as an informal institution does. Property rights are merely a legal definition of the norm of property. But the norm of property is produced as are all commons, by requiring a contribution (sacrifice of opportunity) and teh forcible prevention of consumption by that which is not normatively defined.

    This is inescapable since property itself as an institution must be so constructed.

    THE “LIBERTINE” LIBERTARIANS

    [T]he “Libertines” simply try to license unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior by defining away norms. And while some norms may be arbitrary (signals or rituals), those norms that construct and persist commons are not.

    Cosmopolitans just created an elaborate system of pseudo-rationalism to circumvent ethics and morality, in order to justify poly moral in-group-vs out-group morality that renders commons impossible to construct.

    However, the Western competitive advantage over the rest of the world was the trust started by the initiatic brotherhood of warriors, which allowed the aristocracy to form, and which all others in society attempted to imitate not only to obtain status as a reproductive improvement, but because trust did in fact, non-symbolically, but functionally, produce consistently higher returns than non-trust.

    Game. Set. Match. The end of the pseudoscientific century. Libertinism. Cosmopolitanism. Rothbardiansm. Misesianism are just like socialism and neoconservatism, cosmopolitan systems of pseudoscientific propaganda imitating the framing and overloading of abrahamic authoritarianism. Elaborate verbalisms.

    (I have pretty much put a fork in it. Rothbard isn’t just wrong. It’s worse than that.)

    Curt

  • We Were Wrong And They’re Killing Us For It

    WE WERE WRONG AND MANKIND IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE AGAINST US FOR OUR SINS.

    [Y]ou know, I’m chiseling away at correcting the enlightenment. I didn’t realize that’s what I was doing, but thats what, under the chisel, lies inside the stone, ready to emerge.

    – Fallacy of the Anglo Enlightenment – universalism and the aristocracy of everybody – the people of the island. (the navy)

    – The fallacies of the German enlightenment – the verbalist religion of german philosophers – the people of the land. (the armies)

    – The fallacies of the Jewish enlightenment – the new mysticism of verbal pseudoscience – the people without land (the priests)

    – The resistance of the Chinese to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of power, tribe and family.

    – The resistance of the muslims to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of the priesthood, tribe and family.

    The enlightenment authors used science to obtain power in an organized attack on the church and monarchy. But the result was that we let loose the barbarians not only in our own culture, but in every culture as well.

    Reproduction Reigns. The family reigns. The tribe Reigns. Universalism is suicide.

    ALL OTHER CULTURES ARE RIGHT TO RESIST US. WE WERE WRONG. AND THEY ARE DESTROYING US FOR IT. WE WERE WRONG. WE ARE STILL WRONG. AND WE ARE DYING BECAUSE WE ARE WRONG.

    We either tell the truth, and demand the truth in exchange, under penalty of violence, or we die.

  • We Were Wrong And They're Killing Us For It

    WE WERE WRONG AND MANKIND IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE AGAINST US FOR OUR SINS.

    [Y]ou know, I’m chiseling away at correcting the enlightenment. I didn’t realize that’s what I was doing, but thats what, under the chisel, lies inside the stone, ready to emerge.

    – Fallacy of the Anglo Enlightenment – universalism and the aristocracy of everybody – the people of the island. (the navy)

    – The fallacies of the German enlightenment – the verbalist religion of german philosophers – the people of the land. (the armies)

    – The fallacies of the Jewish enlightenment – the new mysticism of verbal pseudoscience – the people without land (the priests)

    – The resistance of the Chinese to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of power, tribe and family.

    – The resistance of the muslims to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of the priesthood, tribe and family.

    The enlightenment authors used science to obtain power in an organized attack on the church and monarchy. But the result was that we let loose the barbarians not only in our own culture, but in every culture as well.

    Reproduction Reigns. The family reigns. The tribe Reigns. Universalism is suicide.

    ALL OTHER CULTURES ARE RIGHT TO RESIST US. WE WERE WRONG. AND THEY ARE DESTROYING US FOR IT. WE WERE WRONG. WE ARE STILL WRONG. AND WE ARE DYING BECAUSE WE ARE WRONG.

    We either tell the truth, and demand the truth in exchange, under penalty of violence, or we die.

  • We Were Wrong And They’re Killing Us For It

    WE WERE WRONG AND MANKIND IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE AGAINST US FOR OUR SINS.

    [Y]ou know, I’m chiseling away at correcting the enlightenment. I didn’t realize that’s what I was doing, but thats what, under the chisel, lies inside the stone, ready to emerge.

    – Fallacy of the Anglo Enlightenment – universalism and the aristocracy of everybody – the people of the island. (the navy)

    – The fallacies of the German enlightenment – the verbalist religion of german philosophers – the people of the land. (the armies)

    – The fallacies of the Jewish enlightenment – the new mysticism of verbal pseudoscience – the people without land (the priests)

    – The resistance of the Chinese to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of power, tribe and family.

    – The resistance of the muslims to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of the priesthood, tribe and family.

    The enlightenment authors used science to obtain power in an organized attack on the church and monarchy. But the result was that we let loose the barbarians not only in our own culture, but in every culture as well.

    Reproduction Reigns. The family reigns. The tribe Reigns. Universalism is suicide.

    ALL OTHER CULTURES ARE RIGHT TO RESIST US. WE WERE WRONG. AND THEY ARE DESTROYING US FOR IT. WE WERE WRONG. WE ARE STILL WRONG. AND WE ARE DYING BECAUSE WE ARE WRONG.

    We either tell the truth, and demand the truth in exchange, under penalty of violence, or we die.

  • We Were Wrong And They're Killing Us For It

    WE WERE WRONG AND MANKIND IS COMMITTING GENOCIDE AGAINST US FOR OUR SINS.

    [Y]ou know, I’m chiseling away at correcting the enlightenment. I didn’t realize that’s what I was doing, but thats what, under the chisel, lies inside the stone, ready to emerge.

    – Fallacy of the Anglo Enlightenment – universalism and the aristocracy of everybody – the people of the island. (the navy)

    – The fallacies of the German enlightenment – the verbalist religion of german philosophers – the people of the land. (the armies)

    – The fallacies of the Jewish enlightenment – the new mysticism of verbal pseudoscience – the people without land (the priests)

    – The resistance of the Chinese to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of power, tribe and family.

    – The resistance of the muslims to the enlightenment – the ruthless defense of the priesthood, tribe and family.

    The enlightenment authors used science to obtain power in an organized attack on the church and monarchy. But the result was that we let loose the barbarians not only in our own culture, but in every culture as well.

    Reproduction Reigns. The family reigns. The tribe Reigns. Universalism is suicide.

    ALL OTHER CULTURES ARE RIGHT TO RESIST US. WE WERE WRONG. AND THEY ARE DESTROYING US FOR IT. WE WERE WRONG. WE ARE STILL WRONG. AND WE ARE DYING BECAUSE WE ARE WRONG.

    We either tell the truth, and demand the truth in exchange, under penalty of violence, or we die.

  • The Impact of Ordinary Man?

    (Hampering the fantasies of ordinary people everywhere, but giving them a note of solace in return…. Can an ordinary person significantly change society?)

    [A]n important and interesting question, So I will do my best. Although you might not like the answer.

    1) Well, a common man certainly can make a positive impact on society merely by accumulating and making use of the Virtues.

    2) Common many have made positive impact accidentally on the world by virtuous action at the right moment in time. But that is not to say that they possessed a brilliant idea or persuasive character. It means only that as virtuous people they seized an opportunity when it came before them, even if they did not construct that opportunity themselves.

    3) The historical record suggests that most people who make a significant POSITIVE impact on society are not average. In fact, the record is almost absent of common individuals. The people who do make a significant impact tend to be above average, largely from the middle or upper middle classes – in other words, not common.

    4) The interesting question is whether the common man, correctly estimates that his reasons, opinions or imaginations, would produce what is a POSITIVE impact upon society. If you imagine what a child sounds like to an adult; what a student sounds like to a professor; what a common citizen sounds like to a statesman or scholar – the result is always the same: that we are always unconscious of our incompetence. If we were aware of our incompetence we might lack the will to do anything at all. So we evolved confidence in the face of ignorance out of necessity.

    So the question is really whether the common man has any significant value to add to society other than his assumption that he does. On the other hand, there are many people who are not average who none the less are not omniscient, always looking for ideas to use in changing the world.

    And so, it is possible that an ordinary fellow might stumble across a good idea. But even if he did, is it possible for his idea to compete with the many many ideas, of all the individuals who are above average, and who are ALSO struggling to change the world?

    The market for ideas is no different from the market for products and services. If you cannot sell your idea, that is because no one is buying it. If no one buys it then that is evidence that it isn’t wanted. If it isn’t wanted, then by definition, it isn’t ‘good’.

    The greeks had it right you know: wisdom is found in increasing the knowledge of your own ignorance.

  • The Impact of Ordinary Man?

    (Hampering the fantasies of ordinary people everywhere, but giving them a note of solace in return…. Can an ordinary person significantly change society?)

    [A]n important and interesting question, So I will do my best. Although you might not like the answer.

    1) Well, a common man certainly can make a positive impact on society merely by accumulating and making use of the Virtues.

    2) Common many have made positive impact accidentally on the world by virtuous action at the right moment in time. But that is not to say that they possessed a brilliant idea or persuasive character. It means only that as virtuous people they seized an opportunity when it came before them, even if they did not construct that opportunity themselves.

    3) The historical record suggests that most people who make a significant POSITIVE impact on society are not average. In fact, the record is almost absent of common individuals. The people who do make a significant impact tend to be above average, largely from the middle or upper middle classes – in other words, not common.

    4) The interesting question is whether the common man, correctly estimates that his reasons, opinions or imaginations, would produce what is a POSITIVE impact upon society. If you imagine what a child sounds like to an adult; what a student sounds like to a professor; what a common citizen sounds like to a statesman or scholar – the result is always the same: that we are always unconscious of our incompetence. If we were aware of our incompetence we might lack the will to do anything at all. So we evolved confidence in the face of ignorance out of necessity.

    So the question is really whether the common man has any significant value to add to society other than his assumption that he does. On the other hand, there are many people who are not average who none the less are not omniscient, always looking for ideas to use in changing the world.

    And so, it is possible that an ordinary fellow might stumble across a good idea. But even if he did, is it possible for his idea to compete with the many many ideas, of all the individuals who are above average, and who are ALSO struggling to change the world?

    The market for ideas is no different from the market for products and services. If you cannot sell your idea, that is because no one is buying it. If no one buys it then that is evidence that it isn’t wanted. If it isn’t wanted, then by definition, it isn’t ‘good’.

    The greeks had it right you know: wisdom is found in increasing the knowledge of your own ignorance.

  • Yes, we can suggest that liberty is better for all, but that doesn’t stand scrut

    Yes, we can suggest that liberty is better for all, but that doesn’t stand scrutiny. Yes, liberty,for at least some of us, is a better social order for all. And probably, Liberty for those who desire it, and socialism for those that don’t, is better for all, than liberty for all.

    But we do not do what is better for us. We smoke, eat fattening carbs, fail to get exercise, waste time on vapid entertainment, spend money we don’t have, marry bad mates out of fear and desperation, have too many children, practice unsafe sex, operate dangerous machines when intoxicated – including the dangerous machines of our bodies and mouths. And that is just the little stuff.

    Liberty is a minority philosophy favored by the natural aristocracy at all levels of society. It cannot ever exist as a majority system outside of a large extended family (tribe). It can exist for that aristocracy, if, as in the past, that aristocracy fights to preserve liberty, and allows all others to join the contract of liberty at will.

    But liberty cannot be outsourced any more than can thinking.

    Free riding on that level of risk isn’t possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-24 11:45:00 UTC

  • CONSEQUENCES: THE UNLOADED LANGUAGE OF AUTISTICS It is interesting, as an autist

    CONSEQUENCES: THE UNLOADED LANGUAGE OF AUTISTICS

    It is interesting, as an autistic, who thinks in almost entirely spatial terms, and who, for many, many years, as struggled to find a language for communicating those ideas in as unloaded form as I visualize them (and found it), to watch one’s own skill improve with constant practice, to the point where one sees all humans making similar mistakes using loaded language of convention that they do not understand except as loose associations. Whereas as an autistic a loose association is extremely uncomfortable, if not disturbing – something to be avoided at all costs. We lacked (prior to the work I’m doing) a language for communicating ‘loaded’ social concepts in unloaded form, and had to rely on the closest analogies available (physics and science) as proxies. But those analogies are only that – not descriptions, but analogies, and human behavior is not, like the physical universe, insulated from heuristic and constant changes in relations, methods, and properties.

    I have always been able to identify autistic speech, but it wasn’t until recently that I understood that we all do exactly the same thing – sense a reality that we have no words for, and cannot quite complete, and frustratingly use analogies unsuited to the application to express those ideas. These analogies are useful because they lack the loading that rather ‘poetic’ human discourse develops with use, like the marks in an old an still functioning machine part – still useful for the original purpose but no longer suitable for the fine work it was originally designed to produce.

    Normals do not shy from loaded speech – they revel in it. They use it to attempt to persuade or lie to one another that the world is, or should be one way or another. Truth is undesirable unless it advances that world view. And our world views are but representations that suit our reproductive strategies. Truth is for aristocracy.

    Is propertarianism but the logical consequence of attempting to solve autistic speech in the social sciences? Its Propertarianism – the formal logic of cooperation – merely the natural result of an autistic mind’s frustration at the inability to express ideas in unladen form? Am I just a genetic machine, probabilistically, if not deterministically, producing an available output given that the patterns developed in multiple fields of inquiry made such a leap possible given human ability to form parallels between patterns of limited difference?

    I don’t really like to think about life in those terms, because it’s dehumanizing. But I suspect that is closer to the truth than not.

    I wonder if propertarianism can help all autistics, as it can help normals. But I suspect that the truth it provides us with is further alienating.

    He who breeds wins, and the locusts breed better than the lions.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-08-24 10:39:00 UTC