Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • CULTURE THAT SUPPRESSES ALL DISCOUNTS : ALL “FREE RIDING”. We are the only peopl

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/THE CULTURE THAT SUPPRESSES ALL DISCOUNTS : ALL “FREE RIDING”.

    We are the only people to have done it. Because we are the only people who out-bred, and broke the extended family, creating universalism. The problem is that once we abandon nationalism, our out-bred high trust universalism rapidly became a weakness that has led to our conquest by older more primitive societies.

    Return To Aristocracy To Save Our People, and Our Uniqueness.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 04:26:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN ILLITERACY The cure to libertarian illiteracy is to keep up on resea

    http://www.propertarianism.com/jonathan-haidts-bibliography/CURING LIBERTARIAN ILLITERACY

    The cure to libertarian illiteracy is to keep up on research, rely on science, and not empty verbalism of continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. (See Axelrod – Cooperation. See Fukuyama – Trust. See Todd ‘Explanation of Ideology; The Invention of Europe. See Hannan – The Invention of Liberty. See Kahnemann. See RIdley. See Pinker. See Haidt: Moral Foundations; The Righteous Mind. Here is the bibliography that points to the relevant research. http://www.propertarianism.com/jonathan-haidts-bibliography/

    The libertarian spectrum is less ignorant of economics, but libertarian scientific illiteracy, moral blindness, and ideological zeal is nearly universal.

    Human moral instincts are objective and universal if we account for differences in reproductive strategies: they are prohibitions on free riding. Cultures may randomly invent different moral CODES that incorporate more or less prohibition on free riding, and accommodate the use of property in relation to family size. But the cause of moral instinct is universal: the prohibition on free riding and the requirement for contribution to production.

    That’s just science. Deal with it.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 04:20:00 UTC

  • WE LOST ‘LIBERAL’ TO THE SOCIALISTS. WE LOST ‘LIBERTARIAN’ TO ROTHBARDIAN GHETTO

    WE LOST ‘LIBERAL’ TO THE SOCIALISTS. WE LOST ‘LIBERTARIAN’ TO ROTHBARDIAN GHETTO IMMORALITY.

    I chose Propertarianism, registered the names, and trademarked it for my own use. Ironic really.

    The term wasn’t used much. And only as ‘propertarian’ – a categorical pejorative on libertarians.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 04:07:00 UTC

  • THE MORAL DECEPTION OF THE ETHICAL STANDARD OF ‘PSYCHIC BENEFIT’ (worth repeatin

    THE MORAL DECEPTION OF THE ETHICAL STANDARD OF ‘PSYCHIC BENEFIT’

    (worth repeating)

    Rothbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states.

    However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary.

    I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral.

    Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government.

    The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality.

    **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?**

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy Of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 04:01:00 UTC

  • Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unt

    Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

    (ethics)

    a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you.

    b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other.

    c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding.

    d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions.

    e) Requirement for mutually beneficial cooperation VS Prohibition on parasitism.

    ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 03:42:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS ARE IMMORAL, PARASITIC AND THE REASON FOR THE FAILURE OF LIBE

    ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS ARE IMMORAL, PARASITIC AND THE REASON FOR THE FAILURE OF LIBERTARIANISM.

    –“First they ignore you.

    Then they ridicule you.

    Then they fight you.

    Then you win.”–

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism requires that one fight for the liberty of those who would also have it. Proficiency at war, both verbal and physical, is a requirement for membership.

    Only Aristocratic Egalitarians are free. Everyone else is merely given freedom by permission, or a free-riding parasite on that aristocracy.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 03:31:00 UTC

  • Lee C Waaks reminds me, as have Frank Lovell and Bruce Caithness, quite frequent

    Lee C Waaks reminds me, as have Frank Lovell and Bruce Caithness, quite frequently, that people worth debating – in the sense, that it is a mutually beneficial, exploratory exercise, are rare, and precious. And what makes all those precious people the same, is the persistent assumption of fallibility.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-26 23:17:00 UTC

  • 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

  • ETHICAL SPEECH, PERFORMATIVE TRUTH AND SUBSETS OF PERFORMATIVE TRUTH SUITABLE FO

    ETHICAL SPEECH, PERFORMATIVE TRUTH AND SUBSETS OF PERFORMATIVE TRUTH SUITABLE FOR METHODOLOGICAL EXPLORATION

    (worth repeating)

    People in all fields selectively violate ethical constraints on speech when and where it is either helpful to them or irrelevant to their task: cost in philosophy, scale in math, cause in logic, utility in identity, cooperation and preference in the physical sciences. I cannot think of a value of communication outside of cooperation, so to speak to another is to engage in cooperation of some form.

    All these different disciplines DISCARD properties of ‘ethical, performative, truth” as needed for their methodological pursuit of exploration.

    As such there is only one complete set of properties to the concept: ethical, performative, truth. Everything else is a subset of that definition of truth.

    Preference, Utility, Cooperation, Cause, Cost, Scale, Relation, Identity

    Something of that structure.

    (This will take me five years to get right.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-26 10:13:00 UTC

  • SPINOZA: PHILOSOPHERS SHOULD HAVE A TRADE I’m not a big fan of Spinoza’s ideas,

    SPINOZA: PHILOSOPHERS SHOULD HAVE A TRADE

    I’m not a big fan of Spinoza’s ideas, but am very much a fan both his writing style and his work ethic.

    Spinoza earned his living as a lens-grinder. He wrote his extremely parsimonious book, taking most of his life, from a musty apartment. It’s what, 200 pages long? A brutally concise work of numbered and ordered sentences.

    The first statement that struck me was ‘endeavor to speak in a manner comprehensible to the common people’. I’ve always viewed this as my curse. Which is why I work so hard at it. Because I’m aware of my frame of reference, and my near absence of conceptual empathy.

    The other influential thing that he said, can be roughly translated as “Every man who does not have a trade must eventually become a rogue”. A sentiment I agree with. And have tried to imitate.

    I’ve always tried to earn enough money that I could research and write either part time or full time.

    I don’t like the idea of philosophers trying to earn money from their work. I don’t trust it at all. I can barely respect teaching as a way to pay for writing.

    Nassim Nicholas Taleb reflects this same sentiment when he says: “…as a practitioner, my thinking is rooted in the belief that you cannot go from books to problems, but the reverse, from problems to books.”

    And I practice philosophy the same way. I’m trying to find a solution to the problem of ethics. In particular, the problem of deception in ethics, politics, and economics.

    Learn a trade so that you experience the real world. Identify a problem that exists in the real world. Use the accumulated wisdom of centuries to solve a problem in the real world.

    Otherwise you invent a mystical hammer and go on and endless search for the appropriate nails – which you seem to find all over the place.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-26 07:52:00 UTC