Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • The Purpose of Privatization?

    [T]HE PURPOSE OF PRIVATIZATION? (important evolutionary hierarchy) 1) To prohibit consumption (create a commons – the ongoing production of a good or service). 2) To increase cooperation by reducing opportunity for conflict. 3) To eliminate rents and fictions on use of such resources in production. 4) To create efficient organizational use of these resources through competition. 5) To permit rational planning (economic calculation) and therefore complex production. 6) To provide individuals with incentives to produce in order to survive without parasitism, and thereby reducing the incentive to cooperate.

    Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Privatization is Not an Intrinsic Good

    [W]ell, the Nobility in western Europe privatized everything and in doing so virtually enslaved Western Europeans. They were civilized by the church, each other and competition for commerce, and eventually displaced, or as in the case of France – murdered wholesale. The rest of Europe surrendered rather than face the same fate. The “Nobles” in eastern Europe privatized everything and in doing so enslaved the eastern europeans. They and their ‘administrators’ were either executed or run out of Europe. The Russian Boyars and Oligarchs privatized everything, and enslaved Russians. They were either massacred (frequently) or imprisoned for it. Now they have been exterminated. Although Putin’s privatization of the commons seems to be holding up relatively well – but it will likely end in similar fashion. How many Arab tribes have privatized everything, yet have been recently tortured and dismembered? PRIVATIZATION Privatization is not an intrinsic good. Privatization is only valuable if it both decreases costs and improves services through competition. Privatization is not so much a good, as much as a monopoly bureaucracy is a bad. That does not mean that common assets managed by competing contractors, in the care of a monarchy is not better than both. (it is). RULE OF LAW Privatization is a distraction from the only source of liberty: rule of law, universal standing, under the common law, under the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against the demonstrated property of any other. This scope of law eliminates all possibility of extra-legal retaliation, and eliminates all demand for the state for the discretionary choice of fault, and all demand for the state as a prohibitor of retaliation for those impositions that humans universally retaliate against. COMMONS Commons are the most effective means of competing against other groups. The west progressed faster in both the ancient and modern periods when they produced the most competitive commons. Property rights and rule of law, the jury process, truth telling and honesty are all normative commons that are exceptionally expensive to construct. Commons prevent rent seeking by private agents. That’s what define’s a private (corporate) or public (civic) commons: something you can’t force costs upon, yet from which all of us gain “fructus” (fruits. Benefits) THE ‘PRESTIGE’: VERBAL SLIGHT OF HAND OF MORAL ‘MAGICIANS’ Conversely, privatization is just another excuse to recreate the oligarchical parasitism of Russia and eastern Europe. We have had enough deceit for one century. The Cosmopolitans were a failure in all their forms: Socialists, Rothbardians, Freshwater economists, and Neocons. The only liberty that is existentially possible is that which was practiced between european aristocracy: rule of law, universal standing, and property-en-toto. While the effort to create an aristocracy of everyone failed, that does not mean that we cannot create an aristocratic rule of law that everyone must adhere to. And why not? The only reason to practice the ethics of libertines (Block and Rothbard) are to license parasitism, and prohibit retaliation. There is no noble ambition here. It is to restore the parasitism of eastern Europe. So, leave the Russians and The Eastern Europeans to their own history. It continues to be a tragedy they struggle to exit from. Liberty is the product of the aristocratic militia: the organized application of violence to institute rule of law such that all parasitism is prohibited, thereby forcing all humans into the market for the productive, fully informed, warrantied exchange of goods and services free of external imposition of costs. Rule of law: Universal constraint, universal standing, strict construction, total prohibition on parasitism, expressed as rights to property en toto, and ‘every man a sheriff’ to enforce it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Privatization is Not an Intrinsic Good

    [W]ell, the Nobility in western Europe privatized everything and in doing so virtually enslaved Western Europeans. They were civilized by the church, each other and competition for commerce, and eventually displaced, or as in the case of France – murdered wholesale. The rest of Europe surrendered rather than face the same fate. The “Nobles” in eastern Europe privatized everything and in doing so enslaved the eastern europeans. They and their ‘administrators’ were either executed or run out of Europe. The Russian Boyars and Oligarchs privatized everything, and enslaved Russians. They were either massacred (frequently) or imprisoned for it. Now they have been exterminated. Although Putin’s privatization of the commons seems to be holding up relatively well – but it will likely end in similar fashion. How many Arab tribes have privatized everything, yet have been recently tortured and dismembered? PRIVATIZATION Privatization is not an intrinsic good. Privatization is only valuable if it both decreases costs and improves services through competition. Privatization is not so much a good, as much as a monopoly bureaucracy is a bad. That does not mean that common assets managed by competing contractors, in the care of a monarchy is not better than both. (it is). RULE OF LAW Privatization is a distraction from the only source of liberty: rule of law, universal standing, under the common law, under the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against the demonstrated property of any other. This scope of law eliminates all possibility of extra-legal retaliation, and eliminates all demand for the state for the discretionary choice of fault, and all demand for the state as a prohibitor of retaliation for those impositions that humans universally retaliate against. COMMONS Commons are the most effective means of competing against other groups. The west progressed faster in both the ancient and modern periods when they produced the most competitive commons. Property rights and rule of law, the jury process, truth telling and honesty are all normative commons that are exceptionally expensive to construct. Commons prevent rent seeking by private agents. That’s what define’s a private (corporate) or public (civic) commons: something you can’t force costs upon, yet from which all of us gain “fructus” (fruits. Benefits) THE ‘PRESTIGE’: VERBAL SLIGHT OF HAND OF MORAL ‘MAGICIANS’ Conversely, privatization is just another excuse to recreate the oligarchical parasitism of Russia and eastern Europe. We have had enough deceit for one century. The Cosmopolitans were a failure in all their forms: Socialists, Rothbardians, Freshwater economists, and Neocons. The only liberty that is existentially possible is that which was practiced between european aristocracy: rule of law, universal standing, and property-en-toto. While the effort to create an aristocracy of everyone failed, that does not mean that we cannot create an aristocratic rule of law that everyone must adhere to. And why not? The only reason to practice the ethics of libertines (Block and Rothbard) are to license parasitism, and prohibit retaliation. There is no noble ambition here. It is to restore the parasitism of eastern Europe. So, leave the Russians and The Eastern Europeans to their own history. It continues to be a tragedy they struggle to exit from. Liberty is the product of the aristocratic militia: the organized application of violence to institute rule of law such that all parasitism is prohibited, thereby forcing all humans into the market for the productive, fully informed, warrantied exchange of goods and services free of external imposition of costs. Rule of law: Universal constraint, universal standing, strict construction, total prohibition on parasitism, expressed as rights to property en toto, and ‘every man a sheriff’ to enforce it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Q&A: Curt, Where is a Virtue Ethics?

    Q&A: CURT, WHAT ABOUT INSPIRATION? WHERE IS VIRTUE? [W]ell, that is deceptively complex question. The problem of my (our) era, is the accumulated damage caused by the enlightenment failures on western civilization and our subsequent conquest by primitivism and primitive peoples. I’ve enumerated the reasons for this failure elsewhere repeatedly: the enfranchisement of women in particular, but also of the non-contributing classes, without adding a house for them, who have used their numbers under the error of majority rule to transform our culture of heavy investment in commons to one of exaggerated consumption of every kind of capital: genetic, familial, institutional, normative, historical, and cultural. ****So I am constructing a (negative) political philosophy out of necessary limits, not a (positive) personal philosophy for the exploration of possibilities**** I will however, address virtues and a virtue ethic, when I finish with aesthetics – and personal philosophy will be the last subject. But why last? Given this philosophical hierarchy, personal philosophy one way or another must account for all that comes before it. – Metaphysics (existence, for acting creatures) – Epistemology ( knowledge, truth and falsehood ) – Ethical and Moral Philosophy (cooperation in production) – Political Philosophy (dispute resolution and commons production) – Philosophy of War and Conquest (when cooperation and politics fail) – Aesthetics ( Excellence and Beauty ) – Personal Philosophy (achieving one’s greatest excellence) Now, to put Nietzsche and all other radicals into position, he is rebelling against the status quo, and attempting to restore our pagan aristocratic ethos of excellence – no doubt because he found it in his studies of the ancient world. I see myself doing the same. But from advocacy of institutional prohibitions (public law) rather than advocacy personal aspirations (personal religion). Or put another way, by mandate to all rather than choice of any. Now, how is mandating a prohibition on parasitism for all different from advocating unconstrained vision for some? Well, in the sense that I don’t, in propertarianism and testimonoialism, advocate in favor of ends, only in favor of means of persuing any chosen ends. So in this sense, I am trying to make it possible to be superman for the supermen, and secure dependent for the common fool who wishes it. THis is why propertarianism is ‘progressive’. It’s an innovation that increases institutional service of disparate needs and wants. So under Propertarianism, I show that you can pursue excellence (overman/superman) without regard for the material contribution, normative apporval, or status signals of the less ambitious beings – as long as you pose no costs upon those others. And if you choose some end whose means requires an imposition of those costs upon others, that is not a moral question but an immoral one by definition. If an immoral life (that violates the incentive to cooperate and therefore draws determined retaliation against you) then that is merely a choice. It is just hard to understand how it is a wise one. Or why one would look to philosophy to justify it. One does not justify immoral passions since they are outside of the moral constraint, beause they are by definition a violation of the demands of rational cooperation. I do not say one cannot act immorally. I say just the opposite. That for the strong to forgo the conquest of the weak, there must be some rational benefit to doing so. The only reason is the same one that prevented the Khan from the genocide of the Chinese: it was more profitable to govern and tax them. The same is true for the rest of us with less power at our disposal: cooperation is not only preferable, it is necessary for survival – even if that cooperation is limited to a promise to leave one another alone and therefore impose no costs upon one another. That in itself is a productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange with nothing but positive externalities. —“I’ve noticed so much of your analysis is about evolutionary strategy.”– Yes, because in the end, we need some means of commensurability and decidability between individuals and groups. While we are, by virtue of self awareness and enormous memory, capable of “enjoying or not life’s ride” we are along for the ride. If other than persistence, how do we make agreements with one another without merely saying one preys upon another? We need a means of ultimate choice: to persist. —“Where is the alienated artist? Who is he?”— Well, first, is anyone alienated? (A marxist term blaming others for one’s failings.) Lets ask it differently: Would cooperating with them produce negative externalities – like encouraging more immigration of an underclass?(Often) Are they unable to valuably cooperate with others – and therefore unneeded?(Often) Or are the ‘ostracized’ merely those who are displeasing others – and therefore undesirable? (Sometimes). Or are they merely unsatisfied with their social status(mostly)? And did they have the opportunity to attempt to find good manners, productive use and purpose? (usually in the developed world, yes.) If you mean, instead of ‘alienated’, ‘unsatisfied’ and seeking to envision the world differently from how it is (yes), then that is how artists already approach art theory. We often fail to find a means of obtaining status signals, from others, and from our own perception of success and failure. As such we are unsatisfied. And our evolutionary origins inform us of our reproductive, cooperative and productive failure. So, instead, you are asking, “Where is self status seeking, and other status seeking obtainable within Propertarianism?” And that is, that as long as he envisions a world achievable without the imposition of costs upon others who have not themselves imposed costs upon others, then the world needs him as much under propertarian ethics than under any other. Just as research results in learning what does not work, leaving only what works. Just as epistemology is learning what is false, leaving only what is a truth candidate. Just as morality is doing whatever you wish as long as it imposes no involuntary cost upon others, then all propertarianism tells us is what NOT to do, since there is no perfect man to imitate – that would be evolutionarily, scientifically, epistemologically and morally impossible. —“Defining myself in terms of macro-evolution becomes an anti-identity, as that framework is already fairly plebeian, looking for the preservation of a non-identity mass.”— That’s very German (continental) terminology. (a) “Defining Myself”, Does this mean envisioning a character (god/godlike/hero) to imitate? Why do we need something to imitate? We need it for decidability: so that we know what actions to expend resources upon and those that we should not. Otherwise we fail to concentrate our resources in the pursuit of an end. (b) “…in terms of macro-evolution..” is equally interesting terminology. How to we launder that set of terms? I think by saying “Anthropomorphizing my goals by means of a virtue ethics helps me. But why should I care about the evolutionary strategy of the group, and adapt your virtue ethics to suit it?” Conformity to arbitrary norms, signals and rituals is a matter of personal utility, just as embracing alternative norms, signals and rituals. Conformity to non-parasitism is objectively inviting retaliation or objectively avoiding it. If you wish to encourage retaliation and abandon cooperation, then there are no moral questions to be asked. Propertarianism and Testimonialism are not positive assertions, but negative assertions: prohbitions on that which is harmful to the pursuit of ANY end by ANY means while retaining the rationality of cooperation with those around you. It would be ‘groupish’ and ‘herd’ behavior if I were to recommend positive actions. Truth candidates are what remains if we eliminate falsehood, moral actions are what if we eliminate immoral action, desirable actions what we remain if we eliminate undesirable actions. The only heroism I advocate is that all men must pay to police the commons if they wish liberty. I don’t advocate what one would do with that liberty. That would be illogical, wouldn’t it? Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. THE CENTRAL QUESTION —“I realize you mean it more operationally, but it still is so devoid of life.”——“Where is the good life? That which optimized my ant farm?”——“I realize there’s an overlap between personal aristo life and its inspirational impact on society, but I don’t get the sense you emphasize it in your writing and speaking.”— Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. —“Your system is one of the best explanatory frameworks I’ve encountered, and yet it’s not a virtue ethics. It’s more: “how do we optimally engineer society.”— In the schema virtue ethics (imitation), rule ethics (deontological) and outcome based ethics (teleological / consequentialist) describe a schema from the positive and most ignorant of the world to the prohibitionary and most knowledgeable of the world. I think that history shows us many great men, all of whom can serve as virtuous characters so long as we do not violate the principles that make cooperation possible, and the liberty and prosperity that arises from cooperation. METHOD—“I know your education is in fine art, which makes me even more perplexed how dedicated you are to this “Anglo hyperempiricism.”— Well, it is more that I want to avoid the mistakes of the french, german, and ashkenazi thinkers to whom we owe anglo neo-puritanism, french devolution, german pseudorationalism, and ashkenazi pseudoscience. If an argument is inspirationally constructed then by definition it is loaded and framed. If I want to elminate the deceits of loading and framing then my approach serves that purposes, just as the operationalism of scientific literature serves that purpose. –“If I can be allowed the pretense of footing, it’s clear to me you’re a scientist, where I’m a psychologist.”— Well, I know what a scientist is, but I also know that psychology was developed as a means of deception: freud’s pseudoscientific alternative to nietzsche (whose vision he obviously feared.) Psychology as it is practiced to day can be conducted etither as the study of incentives, or the study of cognitive limitations and biases. I think you might mean, or might be better served by the term aesthete, not psychologist. —“What an irony then, that I’m actually trained in formal science and you’re trained in formal art.”— I put forth the thesis in university that there is no difference in the mode of creative expression, only in the ability to percieve each mode of creative expression. I think another means of positioning that difference is between an unscientific and non-correspondent and therefore UNCONSTRAINED vision of life, and scientific, correspondent and tehrefore CONSTRAINED vision of life. CLOSING I have not done this quite the service it deserves but at the moment it’s the best I can afford to put forward. Curt Doolittle

  • Q&A: Curt, Where is a Virtue Ethics?

    Q&A: CURT, WHAT ABOUT INSPIRATION? WHERE IS VIRTUE? [W]ell, that is deceptively complex question. The problem of my (our) era, is the accumulated damage caused by the enlightenment failures on western civilization and our subsequent conquest by primitivism and primitive peoples. I’ve enumerated the reasons for this failure elsewhere repeatedly: the enfranchisement of women in particular, but also of the non-contributing classes, without adding a house for them, who have used their numbers under the error of majority rule to transform our culture of heavy investment in commons to one of exaggerated consumption of every kind of capital: genetic, familial, institutional, normative, historical, and cultural. ****So I am constructing a (negative) political philosophy out of necessary limits, not a (positive) personal philosophy for the exploration of possibilities**** I will however, address virtues and a virtue ethic, when I finish with aesthetics – and personal philosophy will be the last subject. But why last? Given this philosophical hierarchy, personal philosophy one way or another must account for all that comes before it. – Metaphysics (existence, for acting creatures) – Epistemology ( knowledge, truth and falsehood ) – Ethical and Moral Philosophy (cooperation in production) – Political Philosophy (dispute resolution and commons production) – Philosophy of War and Conquest (when cooperation and politics fail) – Aesthetics ( Excellence and Beauty ) – Personal Philosophy (achieving one’s greatest excellence) Now, to put Nietzsche and all other radicals into position, he is rebelling against the status quo, and attempting to restore our pagan aristocratic ethos of excellence – no doubt because he found it in his studies of the ancient world. I see myself doing the same. But from advocacy of institutional prohibitions (public law) rather than advocacy personal aspirations (personal religion). Or put another way, by mandate to all rather than choice of any. Now, how is mandating a prohibition on parasitism for all different from advocating unconstrained vision for some? Well, in the sense that I don’t, in propertarianism and testimonoialism, advocate in favor of ends, only in favor of means of persuing any chosen ends. So in this sense, I am trying to make it possible to be superman for the supermen, and secure dependent for the common fool who wishes it. THis is why propertarianism is ‘progressive’. It’s an innovation that increases institutional service of disparate needs and wants. So under Propertarianism, I show that you can pursue excellence (overman/superman) without regard for the material contribution, normative apporval, or status signals of the less ambitious beings – as long as you pose no costs upon those others. And if you choose some end whose means requires an imposition of those costs upon others, that is not a moral question but an immoral one by definition. If an immoral life (that violates the incentive to cooperate and therefore draws determined retaliation against you) then that is merely a choice. It is just hard to understand how it is a wise one. Or why one would look to philosophy to justify it. One does not justify immoral passions since they are outside of the moral constraint, beause they are by definition a violation of the demands of rational cooperation. I do not say one cannot act immorally. I say just the opposite. That for the strong to forgo the conquest of the weak, there must be some rational benefit to doing so. The only reason is the same one that prevented the Khan from the genocide of the Chinese: it was more profitable to govern and tax them. The same is true for the rest of us with less power at our disposal: cooperation is not only preferable, it is necessary for survival – even if that cooperation is limited to a promise to leave one another alone and therefore impose no costs upon one another. That in itself is a productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange with nothing but positive externalities. —“I’ve noticed so much of your analysis is about evolutionary strategy.”– Yes, because in the end, we need some means of commensurability and decidability between individuals and groups. While we are, by virtue of self awareness and enormous memory, capable of “enjoying or not life’s ride” we are along for the ride. If other than persistence, how do we make agreements with one another without merely saying one preys upon another? We need a means of ultimate choice: to persist. —“Where is the alienated artist? Who is he?”— Well, first, is anyone alienated? (A marxist term blaming others for one’s failings.) Lets ask it differently: Would cooperating with them produce negative externalities – like encouraging more immigration of an underclass?(Often) Are they unable to valuably cooperate with others – and therefore unneeded?(Often) Or are the ‘ostracized’ merely those who are displeasing others – and therefore undesirable? (Sometimes). Or are they merely unsatisfied with their social status(mostly)? And did they have the opportunity to attempt to find good manners, productive use and purpose? (usually in the developed world, yes.) If you mean, instead of ‘alienated’, ‘unsatisfied’ and seeking to envision the world differently from how it is (yes), then that is how artists already approach art theory. We often fail to find a means of obtaining status signals, from others, and from our own perception of success and failure. As such we are unsatisfied. And our evolutionary origins inform us of our reproductive, cooperative and productive failure. So, instead, you are asking, “Where is self status seeking, and other status seeking obtainable within Propertarianism?” And that is, that as long as he envisions a world achievable without the imposition of costs upon others who have not themselves imposed costs upon others, then the world needs him as much under propertarian ethics than under any other. Just as research results in learning what does not work, leaving only what works. Just as epistemology is learning what is false, leaving only what is a truth candidate. Just as morality is doing whatever you wish as long as it imposes no involuntary cost upon others, then all propertarianism tells us is what NOT to do, since there is no perfect man to imitate – that would be evolutionarily, scientifically, epistemologically and morally impossible. —“Defining myself in terms of macro-evolution becomes an anti-identity, as that framework is already fairly plebeian, looking for the preservation of a non-identity mass.”— That’s very German (continental) terminology. (a) “Defining Myself”, Does this mean envisioning a character (god/godlike/hero) to imitate? Why do we need something to imitate? We need it for decidability: so that we know what actions to expend resources upon and those that we should not. Otherwise we fail to concentrate our resources in the pursuit of an end. (b) “…in terms of macro-evolution..” is equally interesting terminology. How to we launder that set of terms? I think by saying “Anthropomorphizing my goals by means of a virtue ethics helps me. But why should I care about the evolutionary strategy of the group, and adapt your virtue ethics to suit it?” Conformity to arbitrary norms, signals and rituals is a matter of personal utility, just as embracing alternative norms, signals and rituals. Conformity to non-parasitism is objectively inviting retaliation or objectively avoiding it. If you wish to encourage retaliation and abandon cooperation, then there are no moral questions to be asked. Propertarianism and Testimonialism are not positive assertions, but negative assertions: prohbitions on that which is harmful to the pursuit of ANY end by ANY means while retaining the rationality of cooperation with those around you. It would be ‘groupish’ and ‘herd’ behavior if I were to recommend positive actions. Truth candidates are what remains if we eliminate falsehood, moral actions are what if we eliminate immoral action, desirable actions what we remain if we eliminate undesirable actions. The only heroism I advocate is that all men must pay to police the commons if they wish liberty. I don’t advocate what one would do with that liberty. That would be illogical, wouldn’t it? Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. THE CENTRAL QUESTION —“I realize you mean it more operationally, but it still is so devoid of life.”——“Where is the good life? That which optimized my ant farm?”——“I realize there’s an overlap between personal aristo life and its inspirational impact on society, but I don’t get the sense you emphasize it in your writing and speaking.”— Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. —“Your system is one of the best explanatory frameworks I’ve encountered, and yet it’s not a virtue ethics. It’s more: “how do we optimally engineer society.”— In the schema virtue ethics (imitation), rule ethics (deontological) and outcome based ethics (teleological / consequentialist) describe a schema from the positive and most ignorant of the world to the prohibitionary and most knowledgeable of the world. I think that history shows us many great men, all of whom can serve as virtuous characters so long as we do not violate the principles that make cooperation possible, and the liberty and prosperity that arises from cooperation. METHOD—“I know your education is in fine art, which makes me even more perplexed how dedicated you are to this “Anglo hyperempiricism.”— Well, it is more that I want to avoid the mistakes of the french, german, and ashkenazi thinkers to whom we owe anglo neo-puritanism, french devolution, german pseudorationalism, and ashkenazi pseudoscience. If an argument is inspirationally constructed then by definition it is loaded and framed. If I want to elminate the deceits of loading and framing then my approach serves that purposes, just as the operationalism of scientific literature serves that purpose. –“If I can be allowed the pretense of footing, it’s clear to me you’re a scientist, where I’m a psychologist.”— Well, I know what a scientist is, but I also know that psychology was developed as a means of deception: freud’s pseudoscientific alternative to nietzsche (whose vision he obviously feared.) Psychology as it is practiced to day can be conducted etither as the study of incentives, or the study of cognitive limitations and biases. I think you might mean, or might be better served by the term aesthete, not psychologist. —“What an irony then, that I’m actually trained in formal science and you’re trained in formal art.”— I put forth the thesis in university that there is no difference in the mode of creative expression, only in the ability to percieve each mode of creative expression. I think another means of positioning that difference is between an unscientific and non-correspondent and therefore UNCONSTRAINED vision of life, and scientific, correspondent and tehrefore CONSTRAINED vision of life. CLOSING I have not done this quite the service it deserves but at the moment it’s the best I can afford to put forward. Curt Doolittle

  • Mind: Against The Puppeteer

    [O]r:

    • System G (genes),
    • System 0 (property),
    • System 1 (intuition/search),
    • System 2 (reason)

    The ‘puppeteer’ (returns search results constantly) The mind handles exceptions (or disparate choices) Negotiation (morality) is an exception handler.

    I disagree with Chomsky, and I am fairly sure that Jeff Hawkins, and Kahnemann and his references, are correct: we just constantly search and re-search memory, and we pre-load any sequence of actions that have high value and then we become aware of the predicted outcome, and we choose to accept the proposition of our search, or we reject it, or we weigh it (research it, and reason with it). I don’t like the ‘puppeteer’ metaphor as much as I like the “systems” metaphors. We act on behalf of our genes. The conscious mind (system 2: reasoning search) rides on the elephant of intuition (system 1: intuitionistic search), which is informed by our desire to acquire, inventory, and defend, which is biased by our reproductive strategy, which is biased by our genes.

  • Mind: Against The Puppeteer

    [O]r:

    • System G (genes),
    • System 0 (property),
    • System 1 (intuition/search),
    • System 2 (reason)

    The ‘puppeteer’ (returns search results constantly) The mind handles exceptions (or disparate choices) Negotiation (morality) is an exception handler.

    I disagree with Chomsky, and I am fairly sure that Jeff Hawkins, and Kahnemann and his references, are correct: we just constantly search and re-search memory, and we pre-load any sequence of actions that have high value and then we become aware of the predicted outcome, and we choose to accept the proposition of our search, or we reject it, or we weigh it (research it, and reason with it). I don’t like the ‘puppeteer’ metaphor as much as I like the “systems” metaphors. We act on behalf of our genes. The conscious mind (system 2: reasoning search) rides on the elephant of intuition (system 1: intuitionistic search), which is informed by our desire to acquire, inventory, and defend, which is biased by our reproductive strategy, which is biased by our genes.

  • Economic Velocity and Trust

    (important concept) [S]pectrum: American Utopianism (absurdly high trust) British Moralism (very kinship trust) German Realism (high trust) Catholic Familialism (medium trust) Eastern European Skepticism (low trust) Russian Nihilism (no trust) Chinese Deceive and Delay (negative trust)

  • Economic Velocity and Trust

    (important concept) [S]pectrum: American Utopianism (absurdly high trust) British Moralism (very kinship trust) German Realism (high trust) Catholic Familialism (medium trust) Eastern European Skepticism (low trust) Russian Nihilism (no trust) Chinese Deceive and Delay (negative trust)

  • Reviewing the Last Six Years of Progress on Propertarianism

    [M]y first draft in 2006, in retrospect, is almost embarrassing. My second draft in 2010, was fairly complete, but when I got to the section where I requried truth telling in government, I’d focused on ‘calculability’ and ‘traceabilty’ as means of preventing abuses of funds, and abuses of the law. My third draft in 2013 still had me stuck with the same problem. I had no idea at the time, that six years of work later, I would have taken that early intuition and turned it into Operationalism as a test not only of truthfulness but of existential possibility. It was another year before I made it through truth. And another year to develop the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowedge, labor and advocacy resulting in the market for commons..

    And while I was pretty sure in 2009 that the solution to government was a market, and I knew strict construction was required, I did not know the philosophical basis for it. I knew that moral intuitions were reducible to property rights, and that variations in moral intuitions reflected the property rights necessary for each reproductive bias. But from today’s vantage point I’ve come very far in the ability to articulate these ideas as necessary, and I am certainly better at communicating them, the fact of the matter is that most of what I have done is improve explanation of why such things are true and necessary. But the original understanding that the solution to the deceit of the 20th century, as the second attempt at mysticism of the west, was truth telling, and that we had to create a market for commons to accommodate the emerging heterogeneous interests of any polity with any sufficiently complex division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. I did’nt expect to end up advocating eugenic reproduction. I did not expect the racial differences to be (largely) rates of suppression of the underclasses. I did not expect to come out so strongly in favor of the family. I did not expect to demand a revolution. I viewed my work as libertarian and institutionally progressive yet it is the right that finds my work most interesting (because it proves that their intuitions are correct.) So I will finish The Politics this year, and possibly aesthetics. That means I will write up draft constitutions for various forms of propertarian political orders (honest and truthful regardless of whether collective or libertarian). A few people have asked me to address what I will call personal philosophy, even if I view my work as political and that inspiration is not my job – that’s positivist. My job is preventing deceit and error. So maybe I will do that or not. I will also deal with the DARK SUBJECTS: revolution, and war. But I do not want to do that until last. So that I think will be next year. Hopefully in time for the election.