Curt Doolittle

Form: Outline

  • Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans The intra-family system of o

    Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans

    The intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules:

    0) Private property

    1) Voluntary Exchange

    2) Symmetry and Warranty*

    3) Prohibition on Externality*

    4) Requirement for Value Added*

    5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding.

    6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains

    These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution.

    Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws):

    7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law)

    8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.)

    9) The right of exclusion (ostracization).

    These last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft).

    High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts

    These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods.

    As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market

    Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust.

    As Such,

    1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts,

    2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts

    3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts.

    As Such, A Common Law System Can Function

    Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible.

    Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability

    As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts.

    Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE.

    1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable.

    2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable

    3) Measurements render relations commensurable

    4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable.

    5) Money renders goods and services commensurable

    6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 18:23:00 UTC

  • THE CANONS OF THEORY (reposted for archival purposes) If you understand (a) the

    THE CANONS OF THEORY

    (reposted for archival purposes)

    If you understand (a) the scientific method, and (b) Critical Rationalism AND (c) economic epistemology and (d) a bit of cognitive science we can extend the ‘science of theories” as placing the following constraints on us:

    1) Explanatory Power (it survives as a general rule in a multitude of examples – theory means ‘general rule’) +

    2) Testable : Verifiability + Falsifiability (we can think of multiple examples where we can verify it, and it further survives contradiction by a multitude of examples) +

    3) Compactness (it is insulated from obscurantism and error) +

    4) Parsimony (it is insulated from obscurantism an error by a minimum of dependencies) +

    5) Empirical (observable, perceptible – even if only through instrumentation, such as tools or prices.) +

    6) Constructable (can be stated as a sequence of observable human actions – ie: it’s possible or ‘real’) +

    7) Rational (incentives – once reduced to statements of construction it each of which is open to sympathetic testing, we can directly perceive the rationality of any incentive.) This is the meaning of Praxeology that Mises mistook for the a-priori.

    In the case of Human Action the Empirical (observable) requirement, places the constraint on any theory that at all states of a sequence of actions, the incentives of the actors are rational.

    This definition of THEORY is the modification to the scientific method that I’ve added to Propertarianism.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-01 09:42:00 UTC

  • THERE ARE BUT THREE WAYS TO CONTROL A PEOPLE: 1) MORAL ARGUMENT i – Tools: Relig

    THERE ARE BUT THREE WAYS TO CONTROL A PEOPLE:

    1) MORAL ARGUMENT

    i – Tools: Religion. Shaming. Rallying. Deception. Obscurantism.

    ii – Threat:Inclusion and Exclusion from the benefit of group membership.

    iii – Our defense: Reason, Science, Propertarianism (the logic of cooperation)

    2) VIOLENCE

    i – Tools: War. Law. Police.

    ii – Threat: death, deprivation, takings.

    iii – Our defense: The Militia. Rule of law. Common Law. Constitution. Property Rights.

    3) REMUNERATION

    i – Tools : Fiat money. Fiat Credit. Taxation. (extraction)

    ii – Threat : deprivation. poverty.

    iii – Our Defense: Precious metals. private money. digital currency.

    A PEOPLE MUST POSSESS THESE DEFENSES TO PROTECT THEMSELVES FROM THE PREDATORY STATE.

    a) Reason. Science. Propertarianism.

    b) The Militia. Rule of Law. Common Law. Constitution. Property Rights.

    c) Natural Money. Private money. Digital Money.

    IT IS AFTER THE PEOPLE POSSESS THESE THINGS, AND ONLY AFTER, THAT IT IS SAFE TO USE THE STATE FOR MUTUAL INSURANCE AND CARE-TAKING.

    The government is a very dangerous thing. Like all dangerous things, it may have benefits. But only if the dangers are handled with the extreme caution that they deserve. Like all harmful things, the state will harm those who attempt to gain its benefits without paying the high cost of its careful handling.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-23 13:42:00 UTC

  • WESTERN (ANGLO) POLICY IN FOUR RULES 1) Secular Christianity (“Human Rights Wors

    WESTERN (ANGLO) POLICY IN FOUR RULES

    1) Secular Christianity (“Human Rights Worship”)

    Individuals have property rights including to the self, that states may not violate. (This is ‘rule of law’ or ‘natural law’ that constrains the state – any state and all states.) Property rights, (human rights), science and Reason therefore determine the validity of any discourse, and no other values ever, take precedence over them.

    2) Commercial Prosperity (“mutually beneficial voluntary exchange”)

    Principle: Adam Smith. The wealthier we are the more choices we have, the better lives that we have. (This actually appears to have limits.)

    3) Good Commercial World Citizenship (“”)

    You have the obligation to conduct your competition through trade, and that is the only competition that you may conduct – because it is mutually beneficial. If you conduct any other kind of competition then we will also engage in that competition to protect the pattern of trade.

    4) Self Determination – You may choose your own government. However, you and your government will be held responsible for 1,2 and 3 above. You will be allowed to select any self determination that does not violate 1,2 and 3.

    UNFORTUNATELY THE WEST ONLY TALKS ABOUT SELF DETERMINATION. WHICH CONFUSES THE “DEVELOPING” WORLD.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-22 06:41:00 UTC

  • Necessary, Preferential, and Luxury Properties of Government

      A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES The NECESSARY properties of of a government are 1) provide a means of resolving differences without the use of violence (ie: to create a monopoly of violence within a geography.) 2) To provide a means of resolving differences requires a definition of property rights. 3) To prohibit alternative definitions of property rights from being imposed by force, theft or fraud, (or immigration.) These are the minimum properties of a government. B ) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following: 4) To provide a means of investing in commons (human and physical infrastructure) by prohibiting free-riding, privatization, and competition when investing in commons. 5) To provide a means of cooperation between classes where privatization, free riding, rent seeking and competition prevent cooperation between classes. 6) To reduce both transaction costs and fraud by implementing weights, measures and currency. 7) To perform as an insurer of last resort against catastrophes. These are advantageous properties of government. C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES: 8 ) Redistribution of all kinds, both in services, and in direct payments. 9) Inter-temporal redistribution from young to old, rather than saving and lending from old to young. (But this is very fragile.) These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation. The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’. The government we have today, has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and created both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.

  • Necessary, Preferential, and Luxury Properties of Government

      A) NECESSARY PROPERTIES The NECESSARY properties of of a government are 1) provide a means of resolving differences without the use of violence (ie: to create a monopoly of violence within a geography.) 2) To provide a means of resolving differences requires a definition of property rights. 3) To prohibit alternative definitions of property rights from being imposed by force, theft or fraud, (or immigration.) These are the minimum properties of a government. B ) ADVANTAGEOUS PROPERTIES In addition to these properties, it may also be possible for a group of people to afford to also have government engage in the following: 4) To provide a means of investing in commons (human and physical infrastructure) by prohibiting free-riding, privatization, and competition when investing in commons. 5) To provide a means of cooperation between classes where privatization, free riding, rent seeking and competition prevent cooperation between classes. 6) To reduce both transaction costs and fraud by implementing weights, measures and currency. 7) To perform as an insurer of last resort against catastrophes. These are advantageous properties of government. C) PROPERTIES THAT ARE LUXURIES In addition to these properties, it may be possible for a group of people to afford to also have the government engage in the following LUXURIES: 8 ) Redistribution of all kinds, both in services, and in direct payments. 9) Inter-temporal redistribution from young to old, rather than saving and lending from old to young. (But this is very fragile.) These are LUXURIES that can be provided by some governments under rare circumstances in exceptional periods of time, where malthusian and group selection problems have been temporarily held at bay by technological innovation. The government is not the source of the ‘good things’. The courts, under the common law and property rights is the source of ‘good things’. The government we have today, has destroyed the common law, the rule of law, and created both corporatism and socialism. And we now suffer between two factions that try to control the government for corporatist or socialist means.

  • OPEN LETTER : CABLE NEWS PROGRAMMING FOR THE NINE OR MORE NATIONS OF AMERICA (wo

    OPEN LETTER : CABLE NEWS PROGRAMMING FOR THE NINE OR MORE NATIONS OF AMERICA

    (working document)

    A news network that you want in your living room, like any other point of view that you want in your home as a participating member of your family, must assume a moral point of view, and must assume a moral point of view that is shared by the family.

    Morals rules are aspirational. Morals are status-enhancing if we respect them. As a society becomes wealthier, and as people become wealthier. We use advocacy of moral codes as evidence of our status. Moral advocacy is a form of conspicuous consumption.

    Everyone in this world prefers to see the world through his or her moral lens. Everyone must grasp the world through a moral lens. We do not have a choice, since moral rules represent our personal ‘brand’, ‘tribe’, ‘political alliance’, and commonality of interest.

    Moral codes roughly reflect our ancestral family structures. The more diverse our polity, the less reliance on the Absolute Nuclear Family that was a requirement for membership in the american culture, and especially with the more single motherhood we create – the less homogenous are our moral codes, and the more difficult it is to construct a ‘voice’ that sits in your living room and speaks in your moral language.

    The conservative moral lens remains homogenous – we can see it weekly in the ratings. Conservatives consider the absolute nuclear family as the central political and economic unit.. The classical liberal lens is not homogenous – because they have lost faith in the constitution and democracy. The democratic center is no longer homogenous because moral homogeneity is no longer something that they can struggle for. The progressive lens is no longer homogenous largely because it is no longer aspirational, but status quo, and further progressivism is now considered (rightly) radical.

    As such the entire country is no longer morally homogenous. Our moral language has ceased to be one creating a culture with a universal morality, and has devolved entirely to arguments over the fairness of the distribution of wealth obtained by little more than our post-war inheritance of the British empire, our vast military power that gives us preferential trade negotiating power, the world’s use of the dollar as a reserve currency and as the petro currency (used to buy oil). Our wealth comes from four primary sources:

    i) The reliability of our courts in adjudicating commercial conflicts – unique to the Anglosphere, and the Anglosphere’s conquered territories (including continental Europe and Japan.)

    ii) Our ability to sell off plentiful land and homes to an expanding population, given our ability to generate almost infinite expansionary credit.

    iii) Our favorable trade status, and the scale of our market.

    iv) Our ability to both possess the worlds largest military for free. (Yes, really.) Because our entire military is paid for by selling debt to foreign governments for use in the purchase of oil, as a reserve currency and as necessary for trade, then inflating away that debt rapidly, thereby indirectly taxing the world for our military.

    That’s the unique feature of America. That’s it.

    (UNDONE: Smith vs OWS the same message: is money.)

    The last century and a half was an experiment in the use of mass media rather than the church and public square for the formation then dissolution of a certain moral code. That moral code of the progressive era encouraged political enfranchisement of new members of the post war consumer class. So technological innovation in media, marketing, consumer goods, and political innovation worked together to establish a new moral code for a large body of new consumers – participants in political and economic life.

    The press worked constantly to advance that moral code, then to advance a new, alternative homogenous moral code. And that moral code eventually reached it’s maturity, saturation, and became the status quo sometime prior to the tech crash in 2001.

    But what happened now that that moral code is no longer aspirational – it is the status quo. People are searching for an identity that isn’t just consumer participation, or little pink houses, but some other aspiration identity. Something that makes them feel a part of something. That “something” does not have to be homogenous. It can be local. Europe is in the process of failing to act like the united states, while the USA is in the process of demonstrating that the european model of multiple states is preferable. Small states cannot easily make wars, and they can be culturally and morally heterogeneous. Empires cannot.

    But they are searching for that identity in an economic, cultural, racial, familial, environment of a fractured moral code, broken into segments with the help of public intellectuals, immigration, the dissolution of the nuclear family, the reversal of the rule of law as constraint on policy, and willing policy makers.

    We live in a domestic empire consisting of somewhere between nine and twelve nations, each with different moral codes, and different economic interests, different cultural and racial compositions, and radically different family structures.

    The marketing solution to a heterogeneous polity is to market to those moral codes, and explain and appreciate the differences, with reverence. Now that the media has created a diverse polity with diverse interests and diverse moral codes, and diverse family structures, the homogenous aspirational consumer moral code non longer sells.

    It would be far more interesting to see eleven super-regional MORAL points of view on issues, and NOT to see them debated, than it would to ….. (UNDONE)

    (UNDONE: whereas conservatives … ignore parties, politicians)

    No news media has tried this strategy. It may be antithetical to the personality types driven to media careers – a decidedly gravitational monopoly in favor of the assumption false consensus biases. However, we can, with ease, construct multiple channels of media from competing shouting voices; each representing a fragmentary moral code. Or we can create instead of conflict, explanation and understanding.

    We can create contrast by illustration and experience rather than talking heads and conflict. The purpose of talking-head conflicts (using people like me) is to justify each side’s extreme perspective, while advancing neither, in an effort to convince the undecided. Instead, the european (more pacific) model is to simply state the position and let the viewer contrast it with his position, and decide.

    It is obvious that the competition understands their niche. it is obvious which niches succeed and fail. It’s also obvious that the newspaper->weekly rag, and immediate-news solution is not of interest to viewers who can self select their own news from the internet.

    But no one provides MORAL editorial services. No one provides americans with curation ACROSS moral codes. That is an open position in American culture. It is an enormous market in a heterogeneous empire consisting of multiple fragmented polities with multiple fragmented moral codes.

    This approach, the ‘nine nations approach’, would be much more interesting, and create more permutations, more interest and more insight than the tirades of marginal indifference that defines Washington DC and our state legislatures for no other reason than the founders chose first-past-the-post majority rule.

    Cheers.

    CD

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-08 16:43:00 UTC

  • HIERARCHY OF MORAL REALISM (ETHICAL REALISM) Hierarchy of Moral (ethical) statem

    HIERARCHY OF MORAL REALISM (ETHICAL REALISM)

    Hierarchy of Moral (ethical) statements may be categorized from strongest to weakest as:

    (a) Necessary for human cooperation (criminal prohibitions)

    (b) Beneficial for human cooperation (ethical and moral prohibitions)

    (c) Beneficial for human organization of cooperation (conspiratorial prohibitions.)

    (d) Contractual and assiting in cooperation (consensual)

    (e) Arbitrary and for the purpose of signaling cooperation (signals, and manners)

    (f) False (meaningless or inhibiting cooperation)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-28 05:46:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY Kill bad ideas. Define good ideas. 1 – The Libertarian Sp

    LIBERTARIAN PHILOSOPHY

    Kill bad ideas. Define good ideas.

    1 – The Libertarian Spectrum of Arguments (justifications)

    2 – Rebranding Liberty by Defining Liberty Correctly

    3 – From the low trust private property ethics of the ghetto, to the high trust private property ethics of the aristocratic egalitarians.

    4 – Closing: High Trust Has The Numbers to Win

    1- THE LIBERTARIAN SPECTRUM OF “JUSTIFICATION”

    ——————————————–

    THE LIBERTARIAN SPECTRUM BY ABILITY TO CONDUCT AN ARGUMENT

    In order of the required depth of understanding. Libertarianism can refer to:

    1) A sentiment (a intuitive bias for liberty above all other moral intuitions).

    2) A moral conviction that liberty produces material and consequently emotional ‘goods’.

    3) A political preference for limited government.

    4) A specific institutional model called classical liberal, which additionally requires, that transactions may not cause externalities (external involuntary transfers), and that norms and the commons are forms of property we must pay for through forgone opportunities for self gratification.

    5) A political preference for particular choice of political model, such as Classical Liberalism, Small Government, Private government, Anarcho Capitalism, or a distribution of small states with varied sets of political preferences.

    6) A specific and rigid philosophical doctrine that states that all exchanges must be voluntary and devoid of fraud theft or violence – which is a lower standard of moral requirement than the classical liberal (and the reason why rothbardian libertarianism failed.)

    ANARCHO CAPTIALISM (‘ghetto ethics’)

    Anarcho Capitalist Libertarianism is, at least as argued by Rothbard and Hoppe, aside from Marxism, the most analytically rigorous political theory that exists. Unfortunately it contains insufficient moral constraints to obtain the approval of the classical liberal majority, and therefore political power.

    PROPERTARIANISM (Aristocratic Egalitarian ethics)

    Propertarianism enumerates all high trust private property rights and therefore reflects the classical liberal, aristocratic egalitarian, ethics of the high trust society.

    LIBERTY IS GRASPED BY THE MENTAL ABILITY AND DEVOTION OF THE BEHOLDER, EACH OF WHOM VARIES CONSIDERABLY IN ABILTY AND DESIRE – AND AS SUCH LIBERTY CAN EXIST AS A BIAS in a number of forms. (Emotional and sentimental, Moral, Preferential, Institutional, and rigidly analytical)

    Narrow camp libertarianism is ineffective. The tent must be big, because the distribution of ability and desire is widely distributed.

    2 – REBRANDING LIBERTY BY DEFINING LIBERTY CORRECTLY

    ————————

    BRANDS FUNCTION AS MEMES THAT CONNECT SYMBOLS WITH EMOTIONAL REACTIONS

    Unfortunately, “Brands” (ideological memes) are produced at very high cost. Because of that high cost, it’s no wonder we fight over them rather than try to introduce new ‘brands’ into the ideological marketplace.

    ROTHBARD RUINED LIBERTY FOR A GENERATION

    Rothbard ruined liberty for a generation in a failed attempt at creating a pseudoscientific justification for an arguably immoral moral code, that preserved ‘cheating’ under the assumption that the market would cure it. (Against the evidence.)

    REBRANDING

    But, by killing that idea, what remains is probably enough to build upon. At least, that is my approach to the problem. (And it’s working) And that will not require the development of a new brand. Just rebranding of the old. And the entrenched commitment everyone has already made to it.

    So, the other strategy, and the more economical one, is to kill the sub brand, to preserve the brand.

    PETER’S WORK ON AUSTRIAN ECONOMICS AS AN EXAMPLE

    I’m sure Peter’s at least partly aware that his definition of Austrian Economics emerged as the defining description for the internet generation. (although I think we could improve it further with a little work). He redefined it by defining it. (The BHL’s are failing because they have nothing to define.) So Peter is the poster child for demonstrating that it is possible to alter the course of a meme if one does so with a narrow enough argument.

    3 – FROM THE LOW TRUST NAP, TO THE HIGH TRUST PROHIBITION ON DISCOUNTS (‘CHEATING’)

    ———————————————-

    HE NAP IS A TEST, NOT A DEFINITION

    “Strict commitment to the NAP is not a necessary requirement of libertarianism” – Matt Zwolinski

    THE ORIGINS OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, LOW TRUST AND HIGH TRUST PRIVATE PROPERTY.

    The source of private property as we know was the organize application of violence to suppress nearly every form of possible discount OTHER than market competition, among an outbred and closely related homogenous population. That North Sea people had a bias toward higher trust is something we can document. That manorialism required husband and wife ‘teams’ in order to obtain land to work, extended this trust. That the church exacerbated this bias by prohibiting inbreeding out to as many as eight generations, and granted women property rights, further fractured the extended family and forced extended trust.

    This institution of High-Trust Private Property was unique for unique reasons, and probably cannot be repeated easily. But it was not a natural development or it would have occurred somewhere else other than above the Hanjal line.

    NAP AND LOW TRUST PRIVATE PROPERTY

    The NAP is a BAD TEST because it is ONLY a test of LOW TRUST PRIVATE PROPERTY. It is a very visible test suitable for a diverse population with diverse sets of family structures and property rights because of those family structures.

    However, the NAP is a BAD TEST because it does not suppress anywhere NEAR the discounts (thefts and cheating) that the high trust society prohibits by requiring WARRANTY against asymmetry of information; and grants 100% legal ‘standing’ to prohibit all involuntary discounts (thefts) via externality.

    So NAP is a MINIMUM PRIMITIVE TEST of LOW TRUST PRIVATE PROPERTY, but it is not sufficient to test high trust private property that prohibits every form of ‘cheating’ EXCEPT improvement in production and distribution of goods and services.

    HIGH TRUST PRIVATE PROPERTY

    To create a hight trust society with trust-frictionless trade, one must not only suppress aggression, but all forms of discounts – entirely. This is what the north sea people (or at least the English) managed to do. Largely preserving the in-group behavior of the Friesians, Saxons and Jutes.

    SO NO ,THE NAP IS NOT THE PRESCRIPTION FOR LIBERTY…BUT THIS SET OF RULES IS:

    The prescription for HIGH TRUST LIBERTY, and HIGHT TRUST PROPERTY RIGHTS, requires the following:

    (a) First Use + Monopoly of Use

    (b) Non Aggression (prohibition on theft and violence)

    (c) Warrantee against asymmetry of information

    (d) Universal ‘standing’ against externalization

    (e) Calculability And Prohibition on Pooling and Laundering – (which is too complex to go into here. But effectively would prohibit government from laundering the relationship between the source of funds and the use of funds, and terminate the discretionary use of funds, as do shareholder agreements.)

    (f) Respect for norms: norms require costs paid into the ‘commons’ in the form of forgone opportunities, and as such norms are themselves a shareholder asset (of the commons).

    (g) Right of Ostracization (boycott) against those who fail to respect these ethics in their entirety.

    This set of rules constitutes a prohibition on involuntary transfers. What remains is only the competition in the market for the value one adds to goods and services, and a total prohibition on any form of free riding (cheating) whatsoever.

    THE SPECTRUM OF ‘CHEATING’

    Which of these actions would NAP prohibit and which would NAP NOT prohibit?

    –CRIME–

    Murder

    Violence

    Theft

    –ETHICS–

    Blackmail

    Usury

    Fraud

    Fraud by omission

    Fraud by obfuscation

    –MORALITY—

    Profit without contribution

    Profiting from disadvantage

    Profiting from suffering

    Profit from Interference in the acts of others

    Libel, Slander and Defamation

    Externalization of costs

    Privatization of the commons

    Socialization of losses into the commons

    Free riding

    –POLITICAL MORALITY–

    Rent seeking

    Corruption

    Extortion

    Conspiracy

    Monopoly (government is technically a monopoly)

    –CONQUEST–

    Ostracization and Displacement

    Conquest through Overbreeding

    Conquest through Immigration

    Conquest through religious conversion

    Conquest through Enslavement

    Conquest through war.

    Human cooperation requires both the incentive to cooperate AND a prohibition on free riding (“cheating”)

    The high trust ethical system of the northern europeans requires the organized use of violence to suppress all cheating and to require truth and value-added action as the only means of obtaining profit.

    4 – CLOSING – THIS IS THE ANSWER

    Humans intuit their morality they do not choose it. The majority of Americans still intuit the morality of the absolute nuclear family, or at least the Nuclear family, because it was a natural consequence of immigrating to America. As well as a status symbol.

    This ethic has rapidly changed as single motherhood has approached the majority proposition.

    However, levying criticisms and altruistic punishment for failing to demonstrate compassion at the margins is answerable by the destruction of trust and the restoration of free riding in a polity. Progressivism isn’t progressive. It’s REGRESSIVE.

    So, we still have the NUMBERS to make use of, and certainly the wealth, if we give people a rhetorical model that gives voice to their intuitional moral code. Autistic libertarians do not have the numbers. But classical liberals and traditionalists do.

    Furthermore this model helps correct the conservative arguments which are purely allegorical and intuitive, because it allows us to use rational language to alter conservative beliefs that are irrelevant (homosexuality is not a choice but an in-utero stress) and defend those that do make sense (norms are property and the high trust society is not possible without it because we cannot possess sufficient commonality of reproductive interest – particularly with single parent homes.

    This is a loose answer to our ‘Libertarian Philosophy’ problem. It’s an historical, and empirical not preferential argument.

    The problem is that since it arose under subsistence agrarianism, it presumes near equality of productivity except for one’s moral actions. But we now live in a world where ability is also diverse. So that means that suppression of ‘cheating’ is a disadvantage to those who cannot compete, not just those who are un-WILLING to compete.

    The benefit of the meritocratic system is that it accelerates reproduction of the upper classes and suppresses reproduction of the lower (which is impolitic). So the only logical solution is to redistribute to those unproductive but conforming people who do control their breeding and to ‘punish’ those unproductive people who do not control their breeding.

    This problem is in part solved by a substantial minimum income redistribution, and withdrawing it if one has more than one child, or fails to cohabitate (regardless of with whom) in order to support one’s child.

    That is the only solution I’m able to come up with that has a logical basis to it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-10 08:30:00 UTC

  • DISCOUNTS (minor refinement to the list and order) –CRIME– Murder Violence The

    DISCOUNTS

    (minor refinement to the list and order)

    –CRIME–

    Murder

    Violence

    Theft

    –ETHICS–

    Blackmail

    Usury

    Fraud

    Fraud by omission

    Fraud by obfuscation

    –MORALITY—

    Profit without contribution

    Profiting from disadvantage

    Profiting from suffering

    Profit from Interference in the acts of others

    Externalization of costs

    Privatization of the commons

    Socialization of losses into the commons

    Free riding

    –POLITICAL MORALITY–

    Rent seeking

    Corruption

    Extortion

    Conspiracy

    Monopoly (government is technically a monopoly)

    –POLITICAL CONQUEST–

    Ostracization and Displacement

    Conquest through Overbreeding

    Conquest through Immigration

    Conquest through religious conversion

    Conquest through Enslavement

    Conquest through war.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-01-07 18:55:00 UTC