Source: Original Site Post

  • (Interview Brief)

    INTERVIEW BRIEF PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT: In Propertarian Institute interviews, we are just having a video of two people having a conversation. It does not have to be structured. The purpose of this document is for you to have a general idea of what I might talk about so ideas are not new to you when I cover them. This is not a ‘script’; it’s a ‘brief’. We are just going to talk about the subject naturally, as if we are having one of our usual conversations. I will try to cover all the points I have sketched out (I never do cover them all – we always find interesting side conversations instead), and we cover them in no particular order, and then near the end will try to wrap it all up into something actionable. AUDIENCE The very-informed, very knowledgeable, and passionately curious in libertarian and conservative (and sometimes progressive) political spectra. POSITIONING Technically, while we often use the language of philosophy, we are actually talking about the subject of political economy: the informal and informal institutions that facilitate or impede cooperation, and the resulting prosperity or lack of it. TIME APPROX 2.5 HOURS FROM SET UP TO WRAP UP Shooting is usually 1.5 to 1. Most of these conversations take an hour to produce forty minutes of video. “STUFF THAT HAPPENS” We usually have to do multiple takes of the introduction because it takes us a bit to become comfortable. As we progress it will become more conversational and we will be less aware of the cameras. If I lose my train of thought (it happens), or if I make a mistake (or the interviewer does, or the crew does) we will PREPARATION read this document. The morning or evening before we should just talk through the subject over coffee or dinner. Best is the evening before. You will have time to sleep on it. This usually ends up with you asking more interesting questions on the behalf of the audience. FOR THE CAMERA AND SOUND CREW I am far worse than a professional actor. I am very easily distracted. Every time you get up and move around you make me drop all the mental cards I am juggling, and these are often very complex cards, and it makes me angry as hell. Most of the re-shooting we have had to do is because the camera or sound crew has to move around. So, sorry. You can’t. Bring enough people and equipment that you can stay still during the video process. EQUIPMENT Three Camera Interview. Usually one or two overhead lights, and one or two backlights. We can do a two camera shoot if we film the opening and closing shots, but it is harder on the audience without frequent wide shots. We cannot do single camera shoots because the questions are too hard and time consuming to reconstruct. THE LOCATION Two chairs, table, fireside chat model. See the multitude of Charlie Rose shows on YouTube for how to ‘do interviews right’. Reasonably quiet. We have used restaurants, coffee houses, homes, and studios. DELIVERABLE A single ‘Rough Cut’ MP4 at no less that 30fps HD. And the source video of the three camera. For those that do not understand the term ‘rough cut’ it means you open and close with a wide shot, then cut between all three cameras cameras ignoring **what’s** being said, and simply try to keep the audience engaged in who’s speaking. This is standard interview editing. When we receive the video we will add titles, effects, and edit the content for quality and time, and render and publish the final video. The reason is that the content is only editable by those of us who understand what’s being discussed and some ‘bad’ shots end up being necessary, while some ‘good shots’ DISTRIBUTION we distribute using YouTube channels, and web sites and Facebook links to the YouTube channels. — SAMPLE OPENING SCRIPT — TITLE “Trust and the Circumpolar People” HOST INTRODUCTION Face the camera. “Hello, I’m ___________, and I’m here in ___________ with my friend Curt Doolittle of the Propertarian institute.” (Ad-lib… All we really need is both our names and the location). Today we’re going to talk about _____________. HOST QUESTION Something on the order of: “Curt, _____________________” (Ad-lib here….. the interviewer represents the audience, so just hold a conversation as you normally would, and interject whenever you feel you want to add something or clarify something.) CURT ANSWERS Thanks (host), and thanks for having me. (continued)

  • Why Do We Want Non-Imposition of Costs Against Demonstrated Property?

    [B]ecause in the libertine vision of man, we just ‘move on’ after we have been imposed upon by some sort of cheating. But this is not true. The strong prefer, and enjoy conquest, enslavement, rape, pillaging. It eliminates competitors quickly and permanently. So cooperation must be preferable to conquest. Why shouldn’t I kill a rothbardian and take his stuff rather than allow myself to be subject to low trust, low economic velocity, high transaction costs, constant parasitism, and feeding and funding of competitors? The answer is that I prefer rapid killing, raping and taking to slow parasitic conquest. Westerners take the christian ethic beyond its limits. All theories have limits. That is why there are no certain premises. Forgiving error and buying cooperation by forgiving a parasitism, is not the same as feeding parasites who them compete with and conquer you. Conquest is evidence of the failure of genes and ideas. CHRISTIAN LOVE IS A ‘PUT’: A SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT NOT A UNIVERSAL GOOD.

  • Why Do We Want Non-Imposition of Costs Against Demonstrated Property?

    [B]ecause in the libertine vision of man, we just ‘move on’ after we have been imposed upon by some sort of cheating. But this is not true. The strong prefer, and enjoy conquest, enslavement, rape, pillaging. It eliminates competitors quickly and permanently. So cooperation must be preferable to conquest. Why shouldn’t I kill a rothbardian and take his stuff rather than allow myself to be subject to low trust, low economic velocity, high transaction costs, constant parasitism, and feeding and funding of competitors? The answer is that I prefer rapid killing, raping and taking to slow parasitic conquest. Westerners take the christian ethic beyond its limits. All theories have limits. That is why there are no certain premises. Forgiving error and buying cooperation by forgiving a parasitism, is not the same as feeding parasites who them compete with and conquer you. Conquest is evidence of the failure of genes and ideas. CHRISTIAN LOVE IS A ‘PUT’: A SPECULATIVE INVESTMENT NOT A UNIVERSAL GOOD.

  • I’m Just An Intellectual Arms Dealer…

    [I]’m just an intellectual arms manufacturer. I give a lot of product demos. But if you want a revolution, you need to learn to use those weapons and go to war with them. 😉

  • I’m Just An Intellectual Arms Dealer…

    [I]’m just an intellectual arms manufacturer. I give a lot of product demos. But if you want a revolution, you need to learn to use those weapons and go to war with them. 😉

  • Overturning the NAP Fallacy By Explicitly Stating NAP/IVP and NAP/PT

    [N]AP does not make a legal framework btw. And pretty much all libertarian authors have stated so. Rothbardian Low trust (Ghetto) Ethics: Non aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property. (permits blackmail etc), does not preserve the incentive for cooperation. Aristocratic High trust (warrior) Ethics: Non aggression against property-en-toto, for the total preservation of cooperation. NAP/IVP (Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics) are insufficient incentive for the establishment or maintenance of a voluntary polity since the transaction costs alone are sufficient to drive demand for authoritarianism as a means of suppressing retaliation. NAP/Property-en-toto (Aristocratic Warrior Ethics) provide sufficient incentive to eliminate demand for authority since the scope of law is sufficient to provide a means of dispute resolution (retaliation) regardless of method or scope. The problem we face in constructing a voluntary polity is that the law must provide sufficient suppression of parasitism (aggression against that which others have expended resources to obtain) such that there is no incentive to demand the state as a means of dispute resolution. Rothbard’s NAP/IVP is an insufficient basis for law and cannot produce an anarchic polity(civil society), while AHT/PT is a sufficient basis for law and can produce an anarchic polity (civil society). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Overturning the NAP Fallacy By Explicitly Stating NAP/IVP and NAP/PT

    [N]AP does not make a legal framework btw. And pretty much all libertarian authors have stated so. Rothbardian Low trust (Ghetto) Ethics: Non aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property. (permits blackmail etc), does not preserve the incentive for cooperation. Aristocratic High trust (warrior) Ethics: Non aggression against property-en-toto, for the total preservation of cooperation. NAP/IVP (Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics) are insufficient incentive for the establishment or maintenance of a voluntary polity since the transaction costs alone are sufficient to drive demand for authoritarianism as a means of suppressing retaliation. NAP/Property-en-toto (Aristocratic Warrior Ethics) provide sufficient incentive to eliminate demand for authority since the scope of law is sufficient to provide a means of dispute resolution (retaliation) regardless of method or scope. The problem we face in constructing a voluntary polity is that the law must provide sufficient suppression of parasitism (aggression against that which others have expended resources to obtain) such that there is no incentive to demand the state as a means of dispute resolution. Rothbard’s NAP/IVP is an insufficient basis for law and cannot produce an anarchic polity(civil society), while AHT/PT is a sufficient basis for law and can produce an anarchic polity (civil society). Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Yes, But **WHICH** Non-Aggression Principle?

    [N]on Aggression, or the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), is an incomplete concept, and possibly an intentionally incomplete concept, and alone it is an untestable and therefore unscientific) statement. Without stating what one is prohibited from aggressing against, non aggression is a half truth, using a half statement, that hacks western altruism. Its an act of deception by suggestion. The question is the possibility of constructing an anarchic polity using the prohibition on aggression. But aggression against what? A) Rothbardian Non-aggression against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property –VS– B) Aristocratic Non-aggression against Demonstrated Property En Toto? The only means of providing an anarchic polity that is preferable to a non-anarchic polity, is by aristocratic ethics. Otherwise a low trust environment with high transaction costs is not preferable – and particularly not preferable to those with expensive capital to protect, and complex production to engage in. The NAP hacks western altruism by prohibiting aggression, which the westerner intuits as true, but only against intersubjectively verifiable property, which once understood, the westerner rightly deems immoral and irrational. Blackmail is the canary in the ideological coal mine. Blackmail causes retaliation because it imposes an unwanted and unnecessary cost, and breaks the contract for cooperation. Rothbard’s ethics produce ghettos, Mafias, and create demand for authority. The only reason to advance ghetto ethics is to justify parasitism and attempt to outlaw retaliation.

  • Yes, But **WHICH** Non-Aggression Principle?

    [N]on Aggression, or the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), is an incomplete concept, and possibly an intentionally incomplete concept, and alone it is an untestable and therefore unscientific) statement. Without stating what one is prohibited from aggressing against, non aggression is a half truth, using a half statement, that hacks western altruism. Its an act of deception by suggestion. The question is the possibility of constructing an anarchic polity using the prohibition on aggression. But aggression against what? A) Rothbardian Non-aggression against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property –VS– B) Aristocratic Non-aggression against Demonstrated Property En Toto? The only means of providing an anarchic polity that is preferable to a non-anarchic polity, is by aristocratic ethics. Otherwise a low trust environment with high transaction costs is not preferable – and particularly not preferable to those with expensive capital to protect, and complex production to engage in. The NAP hacks western altruism by prohibiting aggression, which the westerner intuits as true, but only against intersubjectively verifiable property, which once understood, the westerner rightly deems immoral and irrational. Blackmail is the canary in the ideological coal mine. Blackmail causes retaliation because it imposes an unwanted and unnecessary cost, and breaks the contract for cooperation. Rothbard’s ethics produce ghettos, Mafias, and create demand for authority. The only reason to advance ghetto ethics is to justify parasitism and attempt to outlaw retaliation.

  • Why Do We Need a Monopoly Form of Commons?  We don’t.

    [A]ll we need is monopoly Rule. Defense (military), Rule (rule of law), Government (market production of commons), Market (market production of goods and services). Why, instead of debating over whether to institute a universal socialist(consumptive), libertarian(productive), or conservative(accumulative), social(normative), economic(productive), and political(commons) order, do we not institute universal rule of law affirming property-en-toto, and let people choose the social, economic, and political order that they will ‘join’, and then use houses of government to conduct contractual trades between those classes? Why can’t socialists redistribute to one another, libertarians invest in production, and conservatives accumulate capital, and we conduct trades with one another in order to achieve our common ends? Why is monopoly necessary? We have technology today that can enforce these contracts. Why? Because we have electronic money, and the ability to issue multiple currencies for multiple purposes. In essence, creating trade policy internally between classes as well as trade policy externally between polities. Good government isn’t a problem. We can do it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine