Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Philosophers Merely Have To Product – They Don't Have To Be Perfect, Because They Aren't Prophets

    (cross posted for archival purposes) [H]oppe got libertarianism “right-er” than anyone else. It is nonsensical to criticize a philosopher for getting tangential ideas wrong. I can list any number of mistakes Hans makes but they are not mistakes that are central to his argument, that democratic government proper cannot function without eventually causing more harm than good, and that the solution to this problem is property. My criticism is that his rothbardian definition of property will not produce rational incentives sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity, and that definitions of property, like rules of common law, must evolve with the complexity of the society to reflect all possible ethical and moral constraints such that ALTERNATIVE ethical and moral constraints – of which the state is only one form of error – do not evolve to take the place of missing moral and ethical constraints. (that is why societies have strange moral codes, rules and rituals: they have no method of advancing property rights by rational means. But humans will find a way to fill a moral or ethical vacuum.) All philosophers take an idea and expand it to the point of failure. That is what all philosophers have done. Hoppe came closer than anyone else. [I]t is a libertarian failing to treat our idea-people as prophets rather than philosophers. A philosopher produces ideas. It is not necessary for all Ideas produced by a philosopher to be correct unless you simply want to appeal to authority rather than understanding the philosopher’s arguments. It is only necessary that philosophers produce ideas that like science, increase our understanding and capacity for beneficial action. Hoppe has done that. I am working very hard to ‘clean’ libertarianism of stupid ideas by basing it on science rather than on continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. Science is a superior tool to pure reason. All our ‘flaky’ ideas are the product of insufficient science. But we must forgive the previous generations because the science was not available to them. It’s available to us. Even without science Hoppe got liberty almost entirely right. More right than anyone else. So arguing over tangential issues does not discredit his contributions to liberty. Curt Doolittle

    COMMENTS Eric Field Nice. Dialectical libertarianism is what thick libertarians pay lip service to. Hoppe has definitely advanced the refinement of libertarianism.

  • Philosophers Merely Have To Product – They Don’t Have To Be Perfect, Because They Aren’t Prophets

    (cross posted for archival purposes) [H]oppe got libertarianism “right-er” than anyone else. It is nonsensical to criticize a philosopher for getting tangential ideas wrong. I can list any number of mistakes Hans makes but they are not mistakes that are central to his argument, that democratic government proper cannot function without eventually causing more harm than good, and that the solution to this problem is property. My criticism is that his rothbardian definition of property will not produce rational incentives sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity, and that definitions of property, like rules of common law, must evolve with the complexity of the society to reflect all possible ethical and moral constraints such that ALTERNATIVE ethical and moral constraints – of which the state is only one form of error – do not evolve to take the place of missing moral and ethical constraints. (that is why societies have strange moral codes, rules and rituals: they have no method of advancing property rights by rational means. But humans will find a way to fill a moral or ethical vacuum.) All philosophers take an idea and expand it to the point of failure. That is what all philosophers have done. Hoppe came closer than anyone else. [I]t is a libertarian failing to treat our idea-people as prophets rather than philosophers. A philosopher produces ideas. It is not necessary for all Ideas produced by a philosopher to be correct unless you simply want to appeal to authority rather than understanding the philosopher’s arguments. It is only necessary that philosophers produce ideas that like science, increase our understanding and capacity for beneficial action. Hoppe has done that. I am working very hard to ‘clean’ libertarianism of stupid ideas by basing it on science rather than on continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. Science is a superior tool to pure reason. All our ‘flaky’ ideas are the product of insufficient science. But we must forgive the previous generations because the science was not available to them. It’s available to us. Even without science Hoppe got liberty almost entirely right. More right than anyone else. So arguing over tangential issues does not discredit his contributions to liberty. Curt Doolittle

    COMMENTS Eric Field Nice. Dialectical libertarianism is what thick libertarians pay lip service to. Hoppe has definitely advanced the refinement of libertarianism.

  • Philosophers Merely Have To Product – They Don't Have To Be Perfect, Because They Aren't Prophets

    (cross posted for archival purposes) [H]oppe got libertarianism “right-er” than anyone else. It is nonsensical to criticize a philosopher for getting tangential ideas wrong. I can list any number of mistakes Hans makes but they are not mistakes that are central to his argument, that democratic government proper cannot function without eventually causing more harm than good, and that the solution to this problem is property. My criticism is that his rothbardian definition of property will not produce rational incentives sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity, and that definitions of property, like rules of common law, must evolve with the complexity of the society to reflect all possible ethical and moral constraints such that ALTERNATIVE ethical and moral constraints – of which the state is only one form of error – do not evolve to take the place of missing moral and ethical constraints. (that is why societies have strange moral codes, rules and rituals: they have no method of advancing property rights by rational means. But humans will find a way to fill a moral or ethical vacuum.) All philosophers take an idea and expand it to the point of failure. That is what all philosophers have done. Hoppe came closer than anyone else. [I]t is a libertarian failing to treat our idea-people as prophets rather than philosophers. A philosopher produces ideas. It is not necessary for all Ideas produced by a philosopher to be correct unless you simply want to appeal to authority rather than understanding the philosopher’s arguments. It is only necessary that philosophers produce ideas that like science, increase our understanding and capacity for beneficial action. Hoppe has done that. I am working very hard to ‘clean’ libertarianism of stupid ideas by basing it on science rather than on continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. Science is a superior tool to pure reason. All our ‘flaky’ ideas are the product of insufficient science. But we must forgive the previous generations because the science was not available to them. It’s available to us. Even without science Hoppe got liberty almost entirely right. More right than anyone else. So arguing over tangential issues does not discredit his contributions to liberty. Curt Doolittle

    COMMENTS Eric Field Nice. Dialectical libertarianism is what thick libertarians pay lip service to. Hoppe has definitely advanced the refinement of libertarianism.

  • Philosophers Merely Have To Product – They Don’t Have To Be Perfect, Because They Aren’t Prophets

    (cross posted for archival purposes) [H]oppe got libertarianism “right-er” than anyone else. It is nonsensical to criticize a philosopher for getting tangential ideas wrong. I can list any number of mistakes Hans makes but they are not mistakes that are central to his argument, that democratic government proper cannot function without eventually causing more harm than good, and that the solution to this problem is property. My criticism is that his rothbardian definition of property will not produce rational incentives sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity, and that definitions of property, like rules of common law, must evolve with the complexity of the society to reflect all possible ethical and moral constraints such that ALTERNATIVE ethical and moral constraints – of which the state is only one form of error – do not evolve to take the place of missing moral and ethical constraints. (that is why societies have strange moral codes, rules and rituals: they have no method of advancing property rights by rational means. But humans will find a way to fill a moral or ethical vacuum.) All philosophers take an idea and expand it to the point of failure. That is what all philosophers have done. Hoppe came closer than anyone else. [I]t is a libertarian failing to treat our idea-people as prophets rather than philosophers. A philosopher produces ideas. It is not necessary for all Ideas produced by a philosopher to be correct unless you simply want to appeal to authority rather than understanding the philosopher’s arguments. It is only necessary that philosophers produce ideas that like science, increase our understanding and capacity for beneficial action. Hoppe has done that. I am working very hard to ‘clean’ libertarianism of stupid ideas by basing it on science rather than on continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. Science is a superior tool to pure reason. All our ‘flaky’ ideas are the product of insufficient science. But we must forgive the previous generations because the science was not available to them. It’s available to us. Even without science Hoppe got liberty almost entirely right. More right than anyone else. So arguing over tangential issues does not discredit his contributions to liberty. Curt Doolittle

    COMMENTS Eric Field Nice. Dialectical libertarianism is what thick libertarians pay lip service to. Hoppe has definitely advanced the refinement of libertarianism.

  • Liberty Is Not A Product of Permission, But Of Choice

    [W]ithout states how is liberty enforced? It’s enforced aristocratically: by violence under the ternary logic of cooperation: Null-violence, 0-boycott, 1-cooperation. If another individual desires property rights we grant them to one another in exchange for fighting to preserve those rights from all comers. *We grant that right regardless of state, country, nation, or boundary*. That is the origin and institution of aristocratic egalitarian liberty. Egalitarian meaning: “anyone who is willing to fight for property rights will be given property rights by all others in exchange.” And by contrast, those who do not demand property rights, will not fight for them, shall not be granted them. Everything else is masturbatory begging for permission by slaves. [Y]ou cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.

    COMMENTS Curt Doolittle (Putting violence back into liberty one paragraph at a time.) Lee C Waaks If by violence, you mean private defense agencies armed with a can of whoop ass, I am all for it. Adrian Nielsen There can still be an institution that engages in violence but not a state. The problem with the state: social contract. Only pacifist libertarians are against violence. Except for them, violence within liberty is not a novel idea. Darcy Neal Donnelly How do you defend you life (property) against a mosquito (parasite) or a pack of wolves (predators)? Do you beg or do you engage to the death? Curt Doolittle How have we done it in history? Militia

  • Liberty Is Not A Product of Permission, But Of Choice

    [W]ithout states how is liberty enforced? It’s enforced aristocratically: by violence under the ternary logic of cooperation: Null-violence, 0-boycott, 1-cooperation. If another individual desires property rights we grant them to one another in exchange for fighting to preserve those rights from all comers. *We grant that right regardless of state, country, nation, or boundary*. That is the origin and institution of aristocratic egalitarian liberty. Egalitarian meaning: “anyone who is willing to fight for property rights will be given property rights by all others in exchange.” And by contrast, those who do not demand property rights, will not fight for them, shall not be granted them. Everything else is masturbatory begging for permission by slaves. [Y]ou cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.

    COMMENTS Curt Doolittle (Putting violence back into liberty one paragraph at a time.) Lee C Waaks If by violence, you mean private defense agencies armed with a can of whoop ass, I am all for it. Adrian Nielsen There can still be an institution that engages in violence but not a state. The problem with the state: social contract. Only pacifist libertarians are against violence. Except for them, violence within liberty is not a novel idea. Darcy Neal Donnelly How do you defend you life (property) against a mosquito (parasite) or a pack of wolves (predators)? Do you beg or do you engage to the death? Curt Doolittle How have we done it in history? Militia

  • Where Libertarians Go Wrong

    [L]ibertarians get lost in introspection. The central problem of creating an anarchic society is fully articulating property rights such that they are possible to rationally adjudicate under the common law. It is this rational ability to adjudicate differences under the common law that makes possible ‘rule of law’. Without such rational articulation, rule by man’s discretion is necessary. The sufficiency of that articulated list of property is what determines if transaction costs are low enough that it’s rational for people to voluntarily join a polity in which plans can be made, and disputes can be resolved, according to that list of property rights. As I have written recently, libertarians (foolishly) discount these transaction costs because they tend to be above, and interact above, the threshold at which moral behavior is dominant. [T]he NAP is either an insufficient test, or private property rights that are intersubjectively verifiable are an insufficient scope. Propertarianism extends property to that which people demonstrate they believe is their just property, and places the burden on the individuals with the greater knowledge. “Seller Beware”.

  • Where Libertarians Go Wrong

    [L]ibertarians get lost in introspection. The central problem of creating an anarchic society is fully articulating property rights such that they are possible to rationally adjudicate under the common law. It is this rational ability to adjudicate differences under the common law that makes possible ‘rule of law’. Without such rational articulation, rule by man’s discretion is necessary. The sufficiency of that articulated list of property is what determines if transaction costs are low enough that it’s rational for people to voluntarily join a polity in which plans can be made, and disputes can be resolved, according to that list of property rights. As I have written recently, libertarians (foolishly) discount these transaction costs because they tend to be above, and interact above, the threshold at which moral behavior is dominant. [T]he NAP is either an insufficient test, or private property rights that are intersubjectively verifiable are an insufficient scope. Propertarianism extends property to that which people demonstrate they believe is their just property, and places the burden on the individuals with the greater knowledge. “Seller Beware”.

  • Law Is Synonymous With Morality If All Moral Rules Are Reducible To Property Rights

    (important piece) [T]here 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. [L]ike 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. [T]here 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

  • Law Is Synonymous With Morality If All Moral Rules Are Reducible To Property Rights

    (important piece) [T]here 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. [L]ike 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. [T]here 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