Expand the incentive to cooperate. Eliminate disincentive to cooperate. Eliminate incentive to retaliate. Eliminate demand for the state.
A market for association
A market for reproduction
A market for production of private goods and services
A market for the production of commons.
A market for the resolution of disputes under natural law.
Natural Law. Common law. Rule of law. Universal standing.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 12:22:00 UTC
If you are still an anarcho capitalist, there is hope: we can cure you.
You need no longer play a useful idiot on behalf of cosmopolitan pseudoscience.
Although honestly it’s kind of hard to imagine people still suffer from it.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 11:35:00 UTC
( young man, girlfriend, her father. Two common scenarios. Young man pretends father is not an ignorant idiot. Father pretends young man is not a loser and his daughter a foolish woman. Father pretends that his daughter is not a dimwit being played for access to sex. )
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 06:14:00 UTC
http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/759678422784348160/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=759678422784348160THE ORIGIN OF OUR DIFFERENCES
#TCOT #TLOT #NRX #altright #conservative https://t.co/ErNeX5AYS2
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 05:13:00 UTC
I WILL DEFINITELY OFFEND YOU AT SOME POINT
(important)
Eventually, I am going to say something that contradicts a belief that you hold dear. I am sorry. But you’re not special. I do it to myself all the time. The difference is I just accept that I erred or was ignorant.
If you cannot accept such a thing, the question is why? Most likely because you cannot abandon the utopian rule (anchor) by which you make many of your judgments (provide decidability).
In my experience, most of the time, this means that you are unwilling to TRADE for the conditions you want, and therefore unwilling to PAY for the conditions you want. Either because your utopia (criteria for decidability) is unachievable by trade. Or you are unwilling to pay the costs of achieving it, or both.
Conservatives are NOT reducible to free riders – just the opposite they save everything. Libertarians are almost always reducible to free riding in commons if not also moral and ethical free-riding even if not material free riding. And progressives are ALWAYS reducible to moral, ethical, AND material free riding.
This is because of our long (tribal conservative), medium (self libertarian) and short (offspring progressive) oriented reproductive strategies.
Now, this is why I use the terms “true” and “necessary” rather than “good” or “right”. Because the possible order is that in which we make use of all information from all time preferences, which reflect the needs of the group evolutionary strategy, by trade in the form of status, information, cooperation, production, reproduction, and production of commons.
Very few of us are capable of scientific and testimonial truth in the construction of the social order.
And the only way to get one bias or the other is either by force (conservative) or overpopulation (progressive), with the stable state being provided not by force or population but by markets: reproduction, production, production of commons.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(MORE: Watch my video on the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, memory, labor, and advocacy.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 04:55:00 UTC
TESTIMONY: A RECIPE FOR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF EXPERIENCE CORRESPONDENT WITH REALITY
“Testimony: A Recipe for the Reconstruction of Experience, provided with warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience, and deceit.”
“Truth: A perfectly parsimonious recipe for the construction of experience given perfect information such that error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, overloading, pseudoscience and deceit are impossible.
For the simple reason that language consists of general terms (distributions so to speak), Man cannot know the truth even if he speaks it, but he can speak truthfully, and we can test whether his testimony reconstructs an experience we find equally correspondent to the subject.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 04:24:00 UTC
THE CORRECT ANSWER TO “WHAT ARE HUMAN RIGHTS”
*(Answers to this question show the tragedy of a late 20th century education.)*
**Necessary (Correct) Definitions:**
* **Right**: a contractual obligation by another party to perform some actions, and refrain from other actions
* **Negative Right**: a contractual obligation by another party to refrain from actions: to forgo opportunities for gains.
* **Positive Right**: a contractual obligation by another party to perform actions: to bear costs, and to forgo opportunity for ‘defection’ (cheating).
* **Existential Rights**: Rights exist only when (a) obtained in contractual exchange, and (b) are enforceable in matters of dispute by a third party ‘insurer’. (throughout most of history the ‘government’ is the insurer of last resort. Rights do not exist then, they must be existentially created by the construction of an insurer (usually government).
* **Desired Right:** A right that you wish to possess if you can find (a) a party to exchange it with you and (b) an enforcer (insurer) of those rights once you negotiated them.
**Hierarchy of Rights:**
1. – **Normative** (norms, manners, ethics, morals),
2. – **Contractual: **(from promise to formal document)
3. – **Political Right **(political):
…..1. Law proper (discovered),
…..2. Legislation (negotiated),
…..3. Regulation (commanded)
4. – **Human Rights **(inter-state): Human rights were an attempt by western nations in the post-colonial and post-war era to set the terms by which governments would respect the sovereignty(esp. borders) of other governments. In other words, it was an attempt to prevent horrors of primitive and developing countries, contain the horrors of communism, constrain expansionist governments, and set the purpose of government to the improvement of the condition of its citizens.
5. – **Natural Rights **(~scientifically necessary): Those rights necessary for the evolution of voluntary organization of production of goods and services (capitalism) in the absence of parasitism and predation by organizations whether public or private. All natural rights are negative rights, since we can only equally refrain from action, because we are unequally able to act, and unequally can control resources necessary for action.
Human rights are necessary rights – those necessary for human freedom from predation – that any government must seek to produce for its citizens (act as a guarantor) if that government wishes to preserve it’s sovereignty from actions against it by those signatories of the contract for human rights: the insurers of last resort.
ALL NATURAL (POSSIBLE AND NECESSARY) RIGHTS ARE EXPRESSIBLE AS **“RECIPROCATED PROPERTY RIGHTS”**
* **All Natural Rights are expressible as property rights that we reciprocally grant one another**: rights to non imposition of costs against life, liberty, and property. (Which was the original wording of the US Constitution.) All moral codes are also expressible as property rights, for those actions unknown to affected parties. All ethical codes are expressible as property rights for those actions between parties where knowledge is asymmetrically distributed.
* **The difference between human rights (political) and natural rights** **(scientific)** is that to mollify the communists and obtain their signatures the articles in the 20’s were added that mandated positive rights. These rights cannot be brought into existence without violating all other rights. This is why they do not and cannot exist.
* the only rights we can grant each other are **negative**, because
we can only equally possess the ability to refrain from action.
* We create (organize) governments in order to create property rights. To create an insurer of our life(existence), liberty(action), and property(inventory)
Everything else we say about it is some form of colorful deception.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 03:31:00 UTC
Computer programming varies in difficulty just as math varies in difficulty. So just as we have people who do basic accounting with IQ’s in the 90’s, and people who work with differential or algebraic geometry who are in the 140’s, we have people who program at 100iq and those that program in the 140s.
As far as I know the average computer programmer has +.5 to +1 SD. (107-115) And the average computer science graduate has +1.5 SD ( 120’s ).
Although we must realize that these numbers are from iffy data they do match what we would predict given the (wide) distribution of programming tasks, and the rough baseline that “problem solving intelligence begins at 106.”
Programming well is like any craft: if you make 1m chopstics I don’t know how good you will be at carpentry. If you make five programs of every design pattern in the three families of programming languages (imperative, functional, declarative), you are going to be a pretty good programmer.
The more important property of the best programmers (which I am not) is the same as the most important property in mathematics: short term memory. I have a rather weak short term memory but I remember almost everything I see, read, hear and think – if I’m paying attention that is. So I tend to be good at solving ‘the big problems’ but it seems that I take forever to program them because I get distracted by tangent possibilities when I am working. So I would argue low neuroticism ( a mind that stays in context ) or one that has practiced any of the mental disciplines (mindfulness) is as important as intelligence.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 01:07:00 UTC
CURRENT TOPIC I”M WORKING: CLARITY ON METAPHYCIS OF TIME, RATHER THAN JUST ACTION
Metaphysics: Time
The most effective conservation of energy is to save time.
We expend energy to alter events in new state we would not have in current state.
In this sense we’d not produce but we save. And inventory what we save.
We can understand that as farmers we would adapt our thinking to production an d inventory rather than as hunters to capture and save.
But it is the mental concept of hunters that is correct.
We act to reorganize and save.
We capture this difference between expenditure of energy and capture of energy
We expend some of that energy as heat and the rest as action, and attempt against nature to inventory the rest, and invest it in more of the same actions as possible.
And the reason we have been so insanely good at everything we do is that cooperation (Organizing) is so disproportionately rewarding because the concentration of energy is so rewarding. And because the use of information via cooperation, trade, and money and now post-money substitutes has assisted us in ever larger concentrations of energy/effort.
Man transcends to god hood by outwitting the universe’s course of events
Our ultimate expression of this strategy is to effectively stop time for all but the energy we consume.
***So just as truth exists in the greatest informational parsimony short of tautology, perfect transcendence exists in perfect energy parsimony short of the stopping of time***.
We are no longer farmers and no longer need be subject to the metaphysics of farmers.
Savers of time. And as such the savers of energy.
For humans, time and energy and mass are synonyms.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-30 10:42:00 UTC
THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN CREATE A MONOPOLY POLITY IS FALSE.
Peter Boettke
(Revisiting your post after some contemplation)
The assumption upon which your argument rests, progressivism rests, libertarianism rests, and conservatism rests – in all their forms – because that assumption is common to all enlightenment visions, of all classes, from all societies, is that the universalism of domestic religion, can be achieved in domestic government (the production of commons), just as the left’s vision is that universalism of domestic religion can be achieved in the market (the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services).
But what does the evidence tell us? And what can we operationally hypothesize are the reasons for that evidence?
Evidence is that religions are intolerant, that commons production is only slightly less intolerant, that markets are the least intolerant, but that religion, commons production and market production are all intolerant. But why?
Well in religion we have relative equality of costs (normative) all of which are voluntary – all costs are exitable. In commons, we have asymmetric costs (material and normative), some are relevant or irrelevant, and some are exitable, some are not exitable. The material, inexitable, and relevant costs create conflicts. The market is highly demanding of normative and material costs, is not just relevant but necessary, and is no longer exitable unless you’re a village farmer in the temperate latitudes.
What we see happening is the worldwide realization that the promise of monopoly that we see in norm and religion is not possible with government – and only silly people (Marxist utopians and their descendants) assumed it was with market.
And we have all lost faith with the ability to convert others to our preferences. Why? Because both our moral intuitions and our voting patterns are little more than expressions of our reproductive strategy, reflecting our reproductive, cooperative, and associative desirability.
So we have post-monopoly choices now in the production of commons:
(1) evolve the government to include a market for commons, and create a mix of economic orders fulfilling the needs of the different classes. or (2) divide into smaller states which can retain monopoly processes yet provide a diversity of economic and political orders.
(3) Restore the central object of policy to nation, tribe, and family, under which we seem to naturally create redistributive orders that appeal to all members of all classes, (4) return to authoritarian imperialism (russia/china/islamia) to suppress differences between the classes at the expense of corruption in all its forms.
Now, the problem is, that the various models are deterministic in their outcomes: if we do not treat reproduction (the organization of reproduction) with the same relative value as production and consumption (the voluntary organization of production), then the future is a pretty clear one: South American/Hindu castes and favelas, or chinese/russian master-tribe imperialism, European manorialism, Jewish/Muslim perpetual tribalism.
The fundamental flaw under the western Christian aristocratic liberal (classical liberal) model, is that man was oppressed and able to join the middle class with aristocratic virtues.
The data started coming out more clearly last year, but it’s been obvious to conservatives (western aristocracy) intuitionistically forever: mankind was not oppressed, it was forcibly domesticated against the reproductive interests of the lower class through a continuous process indifferent from how we domesticated our animals, our plants, and our territories.
And every individual at the bottom is more costly than every individual at the top is beneficial. We cannot maintain a condition of liberty unless Pareto rules: the 80% of the capital in the hands of 2-% of the population must be sufficient to construct a voluntary organization of production out of a hierarchy of incentives each of which must be marginally different enough for individuals to choose to act productively rather than parasitically.
Liberty is the product the use of common law to create limited inequality of genetic value expressed as demonstrated productivity in reproduction, production of goods and services, or in the production of commons.
It’s just math. There isn’t any way out of it. Liberty is, like it’s more honest conservative (aristocratic egalitarian) parent, the product of eugenics: domestication of man producing a superior product: subsequent generations.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-30 03:46:00 UTC