PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS Let me ‘get all Propertarian’ here. Define properties, axis, actions, Property, and costs. BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TABLE: Ternary : Neutral(Null), Benefit (True), Harm False) RESULTS (In Descending Order) 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF 5) (?): both are harmed : FF OPPORTUNITY COSTS vs FIXED PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION The biological model above does not account for opportunity costs from production, where production in a division of labor. We must correct the difference between organisms that engage in production and those that do not. An opportunity cost is the DIFFERENCE between one choice and another. In other words, only mutually productive exchanges are free of loss. ie: there is only one T position in the truth table. Unlike non-producing organisms. Biology is a poor analogy, because production is nearly unique to man. Lets see if I can simplify this even more without losing the central idea. EXAMPLE A and B engage in a mutually productive exchange. Neither A nor B at this moment have a more productive exchange to engage in. This is the maximum yield any action can produce, at zero opportunity cost. Every action OTHER than this one decreases the benefit and increases the opportunity cost from zero. CORRECTED TRUTH TABLE P= Production , ~P = Lost opportunity for production, H=harm 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT => P1 + P2 = TRUE 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN=> P1 + ~P2 = FALSE 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF=> P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF=>~P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 5) (?): both are harmed : FF => ~P1 + H1 + ~P2 + H1 = FALSE EXCEPTION: MODIFIED BY KIN SELECTION Genetic Distance: || Humans demonstrate kin selection; treatment of self, near genes and farther genes as priorities with marginal indifference applied to offspring. INSTINCTS a) desire for cooperation (to reduce costs by increasing productivity) b) prohibition on free riding (cheating as defense against parasitism) CONCLUSION Humans engage in cooperation, eschew free riding, and in any act of cooperation, opportunity costs guarantee that all non-productive exchanges (aside from kin selection) are net losses. This is different from biological organisms who do not have the ability to cooperate on production by choosing between opportunity costs. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev
Form: Mini Essay
-
CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS : GRIEF, COST IN LIVES, COST IN ECONOMICS Walked through t
CULTURAL OBSERVATIONS : GRIEF, COST IN LIVES, COST IN ECONOMICS
Walked through the center of Kiev today. Saw the memorials. Saw some people weeping. Saw the remaining barricade. Most of the shops are open, about a quarter or less remain closed. Those that are open have very little inventory, and nothing terribly high end.
The malls are empty. The restaurants almost so. Jobs are hard to find and salespeople nervous about missing the opportunity of each customer that happens by. This is a very different Kiev from a year ago.
But they are willing to pay this cost for their freedom. People will pay very high costs to punish unethical and immoral actors.
The president of Ukraine, a Russian puppet, exploited, plundered and impoverished the people of Ukraine, just as his Russian masters did.
The USA has done similar evils, in an effort to prevent an even worse outcome: the expansion of world communism under the soviet empire. But it is one thing to stop a plague, stop a murderous ideology, and constrain a people until they mature into members of the world economy, and quite another to PREVENT good and decent moral people from joining the productive world economy, and the prosperity that comes with joining it.
The problem is that Russia has nothing good to offer the world. It has violence, corruption, exploitation and poverty. Does the world need a strong Russia? I think so. But it only needs a strong russia if it is not a PREDATORY state that impoverishes people, in a continuing blight. The damage that the Russian soviets did to eastern europe, was tragic and still persists. The damage that the Russian soviets did to their own people – more murderous than Hitler’s war, is only matched by the great plagues.
Over the winter Ukrainians spent their blood, money, and time to overthrow a corrupt Russian sponsored predatory, in the hope of joining european prosperity, and saving itself from russian sponsored, corruption, predation and poverty.
Only to have Russians once again prey upon them. Only to have the west fail to live up to its promises. Only to find themselves raided, plundered, and abandoned.
I love these people. I love every one of them. I’m privileged to live with them. There are no better people on this earth.
The only freedom you have is the people standing next to you, the guns in your hands, and the willingness to use them. Everything else is merely someone’s permission to pretend that you are free.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-26 10:27:00 UTC
-
THE PROBLEM OF CORRECTING PHILOSOPHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ‘TRUTH’. It’s interesting
THE PROBLEM OF CORRECTING PHILOSOPHICAL AND SCIENTIFIC ‘TRUTH’.
It’s interesting that philosophical truth is problematic simply because it was scientists and philosophers of science which succeeded MOST in cleansing philosophy of magic, mysticism and platonism. (I am trying to additionally cleanse philosophy of deceptive obscurantism so that we can repair the ethics of cooperation and politics.) But they left logical and mathematical platonism in the philosophy of science. So we have this well respected and highly successful methodology that has drastically improved our understanding of, and ability to interact with physical reality. But in order to correct ethics, I have to FURTHER cleanse scientific philosophy of platonism, and ethics of obscurantism. And I think I have it figured out. The confusion resulted from philosophy’s history as an attempt to create an authoritarian common good via consensual belief, rather than simply improve the means of cooperation by formal institutions. On need not believe in anything. One need only construct formal institutions that eliminate all free riding – or at least, the maximum elimination of free riding that the current family structure and structure of production require.
Unfortunately the contract for meaning of terms sometimes needs correction. One can correct meaning out of preference, out of influence on ends, for scientific accuracy, or for ethical reasons. And unfortunately , the meaning of ‘truth’ must be corrected from it’s platonic common usage to its performative and therefore accurate usage. And all other various analogies to truth as made use of in the different methodological disciplines ,demonstrated to be subtractive properties.
To some degree, mathematics has already partly acknowledged this problem by calling it’s work ‘proofs’ not ‘truths’. We must unfortunately, get science to do the same as mathematics has done. For ethical reasons. Because it is a moral hazard for science to persist in the platonic use of the term truth instead of performative truth and the completeness of correspondence with reality.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-25 06:01:00 UTC
-
CAPLAN’S DISHONEST REDISTRIBUTIVE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF OPEN IMMIGRATION Caplan’s
CAPLAN’S DISHONEST REDISTRIBUTIVE ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF OPEN IMMIGRATION
Caplan’s argument does not account for costs. He’s wrong. Always has been. This argument is just an extension of Cosmopolitan justification for identitarian incorporation of subgroups into host countries. It is simple literary and economic obscurantism that seeks to ignore the costs of heterogeneity on a population. In an homogenous population under universal absolute nuclear families, we still see high costs of relocation of individuals to changes in capital centers that doe NOT offset the increases in productivity – which are merely artifacts of the change in prices as demand increases in geographies.
In homogenous populations containing ANF families, it takes time for the introduction of heterogeneous forces to play out, but temporary increases do simply to increases in demand for consumption due to relocation are not increases in production, and those costs have to measured against the long term decline of the trust as well as socialistic costs of incorporating lower trust groups into the society.
Trust and homogeneity of high trust, is the most expensive capital to create. And heterogeneity consumes that capital asset – rapidly.
The fallacy of the economic benefit of immigration is that there is no cost to norms. If high trust ethics were fully codified in law, then we could enforce high trust ethics at low cost. However, the immigration of low trust peoples has produced precisely the erosion of our constitution and our liberties that the protestants predicted would happen.
The majority does not desire liberty. The minority desires liberty. And the aristocratic (noble) minority imposed high trust ethics upon the northern european peoples by force. It was that forcible imposition that caused the high trust society, plus the restoration of science, that resulted in european miracle – the only people to possess liberty.
I don’t want to say Caplan is a LIAR, so much as engaged in intentional deception, but he’s no better than the progressives who abuse statistics to tout changes family incomes instead of individual incomes.
Its sort of like his arguments as to why he’s not an austrian. They’re just word games. (There is no difference between the argument for prices and incentives. Obverse and Reverse of the same concept.)
My purpose is to promote my genes, even at the expense of others genes. If we can cooperate while I do that then that’s fine. But if we cannot cooperate while I do that, then there is no point in cooperation.
We all demonstrate our time preference. That’s mine. That’s everyone other than W.E.I.R.D’s – who are demonstrably suicidal.
You don’t get to determine what my preference is. Thats totalitarian. If you dictate my preferences that is by definition not a state of liberty. I agree to cooperate if it’s beneficial to my ends, but not if it is not. That is all that can be said.
I don’t subscribe to the leftist proposal of Rawls, nor the left libertarian position of open borders. I subscribe to the aristocratic proposal that if cooperation is beneficial to me and mine then we should cooperate, but if it’s not then no. I don’t know what’s libertarian about favoring dysgenics.
I mean, why should I squander my earnings through redistribution? Why should I squander my culture’s high trust norms through redistribution? And why should I squander my genes through dysgenic redistribution?
I mean, if you’re a libertarian and you claim to have rights to your earnings, then why do you only have rights to your earnings and not the right to your other forms of capital?
I can spend my inheritance too. That isn’t an increase in production, that’s just rapid destruction of accumulated capital.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-24 13:59:00 UTC
-
GERMANY BLOCKED UKRAINIAN MEMBERSHIP. NOW THEY BLOCK ITS DEFENSE. Like I’ve been
GERMANY BLOCKED UKRAINIAN MEMBERSHIP. NOW THEY BLOCK ITS DEFENSE.
Like I’ve been saying for over a decade now: pull the USA out of europe and force Germany to return to its natural position, and pay its natural costs, of defending itself and europe.
–“”The Russian economy is a very weak economy. It’s based almost entirely on oil exports. The financial sanctions that are feasible would have an immediate and serious impact on a feeble Russian economy, and that’s what we ought to do.”
Unfortunately, not all of the allies of the United States are prepared to do that, Perle says.
“In particular, the Germans are reluctant to take any significant action,” he said.
“Ironically, the Germans helped land us in this situation when they refused to consider inviting Ukraine into NATO. If Ukraine were a NATO member, we wouldn’t be in this situation we are in today.”
Perle said the U.S. must be prepared to work with sanctions that do not involve military intervention, which “one always worries can spin out of control.”
“Financial sanctions on Russia are the obvious thing to do,” he said.
“So, I would hope that our less reluctant allies would put some pressure on our more reluctant allies and persuade the Germans in particular that it’s time for them to play a role, commence with their power and authority.””–
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-24 09:38:00 UTC
-
THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY
THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF THE WILLING
The intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone.
The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions.
But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive.
It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state.
Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintain their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange.
Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk.
We are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth.
Aristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 12:40:00 UTC
-
ALL RELIGIONS NEED A BOOK All religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under
ALL RELIGIONS NEED A BOOK
All religions need a ‘book’. I have been working under that premise for over a decade. Once you have a book, philosophy doesn’t float. You have an authoritarian position to refer to. Debate over that position creates invention in the minds of those who are interested.
If the book is very good, then the results are self organizing. If you have a book and advocates, then you have political means. If you have a book, advocates and members, then you political power. If you have political power you can institute your ideas. If your book morally condones violence in the pursuit of your ideas, you have an eternal irrevocable advantage independent of current circumstance.
The problem for the west is that we have never had a book. Plato failed. The monarchs ruled by tradition. The church spoke in allegory. Smith Hume and Jefferson wrote advice not rules, and they created the catastrophic error that the near universal aristocratization of the English could have the same breadth of application as the doctrine of the church.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 06:20:00 UTC
-
THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY
THE ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY VS THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT ARISTOCRACY OF THE WILLING
The intention of the anglo enlightenment was to create an aristocracy of everyone, by granting aristocratic property rights and obligations to everyone.
The program succeeded as long as there were members of the non-aristocratic classes, that observed aristocratic traditions.
But with first the introduction of the catholic non-aristocratic classes, and then women, and then eastern european jews, and now members of third world socialistic cultures, this model could not survive.
It could not survive because meritocracy is not to the advantage of cultures that depend upon systemic free riding both within the family, and between the family and the state.
Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Dark Enlightenment returns to the intention of the enlightenment with one exception: I seek to limit aristocracy to those that desire it, will act to obtain it, and will act to defend it. There is no reason whatsoever that a society needs an homogenous set of rules, rights and obligations for all members. If certain people want to maintian their socialistic policies between themselves, and others to maintain their aristocratic policies between themselves, then this is adequate as long as neither group makes a claim on the property of the other, and obtains the property of the other only in voluntary exchange.
Aristocracy is a high risk way of life, that rewards that high risk, or punishes it. Not all people and all peoples are capable of this way of life. Collective insurance and collective risk is more appropriate to their wants and abilities. It is immoral to ask them to embrace aristocratic life and aristocracy’s requirement for self-insurance. Likewise many of us desire liberty and meritocracy, and the status and wealth that comes from it, even if we must carry the risk of self-insurance against the vicissitudes of life. For ‘the best’ our competitive ability, our wits, our will, our strength, is our insurance against the vicissitudes of life. It is immoral to ask us to pay collective insurance and to limit ourselves to collective risk.
We are unequal. We must make use of unequal strategies if each of us is to flourish to the best of his abilities, in the meager time we have on this earth.
Aristocracy is a choice we make, and a burden we carry, in exchange for the freedom to flourish to the best of our abilities. Yet we cannot ask those whose flourishing depends on collective efforts to adopt individual risk and reward.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 05:55:00 UTC
-
PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM (important piece) Propertarianis
PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM
(important piece)
Propertarianism is an ethical model for use in self government. Under Propertarianism I do not advocate a form of self government, other than an independent judiciary under the common law and under a constitution enumerating propertarian ethics – as such I advocate only rights that must be observed by ANY form of self government – anywhere – if people are to possess liberty.
Most political philosophy advocates forms of government in the hope of creating certain rights or opportunities, rather than addressing the fundamental problem of whether or not those rights necessary for flourishing exist. Flourishing requires that we suppress free riding in all its forms. Some groups may suppress more, and some less, but those that suppress more will always and everywhere flourish (over the long term) more so than those that suppress less, because free riding is perhaps the most expensive and burdensome transaction cost that can be imposed upon a society by its own institutional failures.
Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism – I make use of Propertarian Ethics. Under Aristocratic Egalitarianism, we obtain our property rights from others in exchange for the promise of defending their property rights with violence. We must accept exchange with any person who wishes property rights, and therefore defend the rights of all others who desire freedom.
Rothbardian Libertarianism is an unethical, immoral and parasitic philosophy.
Aristocratic Egalitarianism under Propertarian Ethics, is the most moral philosophy that I believe man has yet developed. If one wants liberty and property rights, he may have them in exchange for his commitment to use violence to defend them always and everywhere.
This was the origin of Aristocratic Egalitarianism of the Northern Europeans. Unfortunately our ancestors practiced it by habit and tradition, not by written articulation and so it did not survive the attack on by the enlightenment and the democratic revolutions. The reasons are simple: First, written rules tend to freeze evolutionary development unless limited to fundamental first causes. Secondly, we lacked the knowledge of economics to translate that tradition from moral and traditional terms into rational terms.
If you fill fight for my rights. I will fight for yours. That is the contract for aristocracy.
That is the contract we must bring back, if we are to have our liberty once again.
Cheers.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 05:14:00 UTC
-
ARBITRARY RULES AND REGULATIONS AS ASSERTIONS OF POWER I had forgotten the Briti
ARBITRARY RULES AND REGULATIONS AS ASSERTIONS OF POWER
I had forgotten the British fascination and obsession with meaningless rules as expressions of proletarian power. Idiots take pride in enforcement of rules.
At least in the states, we still know that rules are guidelines to prevent undesirable consequences.
It is your moral and civic duty to undermine frivolous rules and regulations.
American TSA staff are demonstrably morons. British equivalents are demonstrably morons.
The difference is that American TSA morons know that they’re engaged in frivolous activity -and try to hide it. Their British counterparts not only are oblivious to the fact that they’re engaged in frivolous activity- the idiots are actually proud of it. They positively beam about it.
Source date (UTC): 2014-04-22 10:46:00 UTC