Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Rights of Limited Market Monopoly (Intellectual Property)

    [E]xcuse me in advance for the language of my analytic philosophy. That said, I tend to describe the grant of limited monopoly license under similar criteria to which we grant the license to property: “Transitus(transit), Usus(use), Fructus (fruits of), Mancipio(transfer), and Abusus(consumption)”.

    We can grant different rights to property. We can grant different rights to the market as well.

    In intellectual property I use: Innovatio(invention), Investimus(investment), Produco(requrement for production.) . We can grant these three rights as long as we maintain the corresponding requirements – of which time is actually a poor measure.

    1) ‘INNOVATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a lottery effect as a means of encouraging innovation.
    – In which case, one must maintain a product in production in order to maintain the original intent. In other words, there can be no patent protection per se, merely a patent serves as prohibition on competition for the resulting products and services.

    2) ‘INVESTIGATIO’ : The practical utility of creating a limited monopoly as a means of funding off-book research and development for goods not possible for the market to produce otherwise at current incentives. This is probably a much better solution to basic research than is the grant system.
    – In which case it is possible to set a limited return on the limited monopoly – not just in time but also in income.

    3) ‘PRODUCO’ : The moral prohibition on free riding*, and a requirement for production in order to participate in the commons (market).
    – In which case the prohibition must be limited to profiting in the broadest sense, not to personal copying, for personal use. (Creative Commons for example).

    *The prohibition on free riding (imposition of costs) that we evolved to prevent ‘cheating’ in parallel to our evolution of cooperation might require some explaining. We retaliate, at cost, against the imposition cost, whether it be obvious violence theft and fraud, less obvious free riding, or imperceptible violation of moral norms.

    REPAIRING EXTERNALITIES
    Now, some side effects are perverse and obvious:

    But some externalities are less obvious:

      Curt Doolittle
      The Propertarian Institute
      Kiev, Ukraine.

    • Strict Construction Under Propertarianism

      (important) (law) (strict construction) [W]ith Propertarianism, strict construction of Law is possible. And not particularly difficult. The Structure of a Propertarian Law:

      • (whereas) Given some such means of involuntary transfer/free riding; (prohibition) We prohibit all such involuntary transfers; (assertion) And define these rights; (proof) By this reasoning; (falsification criteria) Until such time as the aforementioned means of involuntary transfer is no longer possible.
      Rule of Law We require only rule of law under the one law of cooperation – a prohibition on parasitism – administered by an independent judiciary, decided by jury, and enforced by sheriff’s with by same criteria. Assuming the Rights of Exit Rights of positive and negative association (organization) Right of nullification (by Jury of any scale: jury, house or senate, regional population) Right of Secession (by  individual, family, and Jury of any scale: jury, house or senate, regional population) Contractual Commons We require no legislature. We require only a formal market for the construction of commons by contract.

    • Strict Construction Under Propertarianism

      (important) (law) (strict construction) [W]ith Propertarianism, strict construction of Law is possible. And not particularly difficult. The Structure of a Propertarian Law:

      • (whereas) Given some such means of involuntary transfer/free riding; (prohibition) We prohibit all such involuntary transfers; (assertion) And define these rights; (proof) By this reasoning; (falsification criteria) Until such time as the aforementioned means of involuntary transfer is no longer possible.
      Rule of Law We require only rule of law under the one law of cooperation – a prohibition on parasitism – administered by an independent judiciary, decided by jury, and enforced by sheriff’s with by same criteria. Assuming the Rights of Exit Rights of positive and negative association (organization) Right of nullification (by Jury of any scale: jury, house or senate, regional population) Right of Secession (by  individual, family, and Jury of any scale: jury, house or senate, regional population) Contractual Commons We require no legislature. We require only a formal market for the construction of commons by contract.

    • The Relationship Between (Neo)Reaction and Science

      CONSERVATISM -> REACTION -> PROPERTARIANISM (TESTIMONIALISM)

      —“Reaction is foremost about embracing reality. An objective reality exists apart whatever stories men may tell themselves. This reality is harsh and bitter as we live in a fallen world. Reality can be denied temporarily, but will always win in the end.”—

      [I] thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the relationship between Reaction and Science. (a) Reaction is an articulate criticism not a solution, and what solutions Curtis provided are afterthoughts – which is why we never talk about them seriously. (b) Reaction provides a language – a terminology of criticism. Which is good. Not just for signaling one another, but because the terminology provides a consistent argumentative structure for ongoing development of ideas – and leaves behind a cannon of ideas easier to learn and whose meaning is easier to maintain over time. Terms frame arguments. And members of reaction have succeeded in framing the argument. To defeat an idea, we must be able to name it and discuss it. That effort was successful. (c) But Reaction is stated in Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. Just as the opposition relies upon Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. It is NOT stated in scientific language free of moral loading and framing, nor is it stated in the Anglo Analytic (scientific) language. It is an argumentatively moral and rational criticism, not a legal, analytic, and scientific alternative. Criticisms are necessary because they motivate us as all good ideology should, but solutions are necessary also, because they can be stated operationally, and put into place operationally, and the rule of law can institutionalize them over long periods of, because they are ‘calculable’ statements rather than ‘interpretable’ statements. (d) The opposition uses pseudoscience. And reaction uses science to counter their pseudoscience – thanks to the revolution started by Pinker. And that corresponds to our history: The Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our European and indo-european ancestors, manorialism as an economic and political system, conservatism as a political philosophy, are each objectively scientific processes (observation, trial, error, and reaction), using the scientific method of cooperation (rule of law, common law, property rights, independent judiciary), (e) Conservatism as an intellectual movement failed, in no small part, because our scientific civilization was still reliant upon the rational moral language of our religious ancestors. Reaction is the first meaningful improvement in conservative (aristocratic) argument in decades. But, ’embracing reality’ is done in the language of correspondence with reality: science and the philosophy of science: analytic philosophy. Science has evolved to become the universal language of truthfulness. In no small part because it is laundered of moral loading, framing, and justification. Morality and Rationalism are allegorical and sentimental technologies. Science and Analytic philosophy are procedural, operational, existential, and unloaded technologies. Morality may be inspiring but science is actionable. I can make a legal contract – a constitution – that is hard to break. But I cannot make a moral analogy that survives the same attacks. (f) The next evolution of reaction must be not one of improving our loading and framing – although that is necessary for moral antagonism that encourages people to take up arms – but one of articulating the revocation of the errors of the enlightenment in actionable, scientific, analytic, and legal terms. These scientific, analytic, LEGAL and therefore AMORAL terms, are not as inspiring as the pervasive moral indignation we can load in continental rationalism. They are not as easy to understand, either. And we will require even more new terms. But they are much more precise tools for the construction of a set of demands for a set of institutions that will restore our ancient scientific civilization to its original direction as the guiding language of mankind. Finish the transformation of the scientific civilization to the language of science. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

    • The Relationship Between (Neo)Reaction and Science

      CONSERVATISM -> REACTION -> PROPERTARIANISM (TESTIMONIALISM)

      —“Reaction is foremost about embracing reality. An objective reality exists apart whatever stories men may tell themselves. This reality is harsh and bitter as we live in a fallen world. Reality can be denied temporarily, but will always win in the end.”—

      [I] thought it was a good opportunity to talk about the relationship between Reaction and Science. (a) Reaction is an articulate criticism not a solution, and what solutions Curtis provided are afterthoughts – which is why we never talk about them seriously. (b) Reaction provides a language – a terminology of criticism. Which is good. Not just for signaling one another, but because the terminology provides a consistent argumentative structure for ongoing development of ideas – and leaves behind a cannon of ideas easier to learn and whose meaning is easier to maintain over time. Terms frame arguments. And members of reaction have succeeded in framing the argument. To defeat an idea, we must be able to name it and discuss it. That effort was successful. (c) But Reaction is stated in Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. Just as the opposition relies upon Continental (moral) and rational philosophical language. It is NOT stated in scientific language free of moral loading and framing, nor is it stated in the Anglo Analytic (scientific) language. It is an argumentatively moral and rational criticism, not a legal, analytic, and scientific alternative. Criticisms are necessary because they motivate us as all good ideology should, but solutions are necessary also, because they can be stated operationally, and put into place operationally, and the rule of law can institutionalize them over long periods of, because they are ‘calculable’ statements rather than ‘interpretable’ statements. (d) The opposition uses pseudoscience. And reaction uses science to counter their pseudoscience – thanks to the revolution started by Pinker. And that corresponds to our history: The Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our European and indo-european ancestors, manorialism as an economic and political system, conservatism as a political philosophy, are each objectively scientific processes (observation, trial, error, and reaction), using the scientific method of cooperation (rule of law, common law, property rights, independent judiciary), (e) Conservatism as an intellectual movement failed, in no small part, because our scientific civilization was still reliant upon the rational moral language of our religious ancestors. Reaction is the first meaningful improvement in conservative (aristocratic) argument in decades. But, ’embracing reality’ is done in the language of correspondence with reality: science and the philosophy of science: analytic philosophy. Science has evolved to become the universal language of truthfulness. In no small part because it is laundered of moral loading, framing, and justification. Morality and Rationalism are allegorical and sentimental technologies. Science and Analytic philosophy are procedural, operational, existential, and unloaded technologies. Morality may be inspiring but science is actionable. I can make a legal contract – a constitution – that is hard to break. But I cannot make a moral analogy that survives the same attacks. (f) The next evolution of reaction must be not one of improving our loading and framing – although that is necessary for moral antagonism that encourages people to take up arms – but one of articulating the revocation of the errors of the enlightenment in actionable, scientific, analytic, and legal terms. These scientific, analytic, LEGAL and therefore AMORAL terms, are not as inspiring as the pervasive moral indignation we can load in continental rationalism. They are not as easy to understand, either. And we will require even more new terms. But they are much more precise tools for the construction of a set of demands for a set of institutions that will restore our ancient scientific civilization to its original direction as the guiding language of mankind. Finish the transformation of the scientific civilization to the language of science. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

    • Fragility: It’s Easier Than Ever to Revolt

      (from elsewhere)(archival) [F]ree Northerner,

      Our opponents attacked us with better leadership, better organization, outright lies, obscurant rationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda: repeated over and over again. Most effectively by achieving by judicial activism and immigration, what could not be achieved by persuasion. And of those who could be persuaded, it was predominantly women who, like they were by Christianity in Rome, most easily fooled. And who, being fooled in large numbers, tilted votes, taught children in schools, provided income and incentives to universities as a new customer base, and staffed marketing departments and advertising agencies. Contrary to current opinion, it is very easy to do something about it. It is merely costly, not hard. Because contemporary civilization is fragile. But to succeed in any campaign, we must have a better idea, better articulated, better leaders, better organization, and a means of persecuting lying, deceit, pseudoscience, and propaganda. Because gossip and deceit are cheap and easily made plentiful. That is their tactic. Women evolved to use gossip to rally against alphas. By contrast, violence and truth are expensive and hard to make plentiful. But that is both our tactic and our objective: truth and the threat of violence for those who gossip and deceive. We require: A goal. A plan. A moral justification for violence. And the will to pay the high cost of saving our civilization from the age of lies and propaganda made possible by the introduction of women into the politics of our high trust polity under open enfranchisement representative democracy, without houses of government that represent our competing class and gender interests. Our opponents’ strategy is purely verbal – so they need numbers. We don’t. We need a few good men willing to risk life and liberty. Because the liars have created pervasive fragility that can easily be exploited. Once we have actionable demands, we can raise the cost of not meeting those demands by taking advantage of that fragility. Whether it be nullification, secession, revolution, or civil war, is merely a measure of the cost that the people are willing to pay to preserve their tyranny of the masses. We need a solution to post-democratic equalitarian government, the construction of immoral laws, judicial activism in order to do something other than just rebel. Which is what I work on full time. Thankfully, success is more possible now than it has ever been. Liberty, truth and rule of law and natural aristocracy in our lifetime, or tyranny, deceit, propaganda, Brazil and castes in the next. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev, Ukraine. http://freenortherner.com/2015/…/07/nihilism-and-utopianism/

    • Fragility: It’s Easier Than Ever to Revolt

      (from elsewhere)(archival) [F]ree Northerner,

      Our opponents attacked us with better leadership, better organization, outright lies, obscurant rationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda: repeated over and over again. Most effectively by achieving by judicial activism and immigration, what could not be achieved by persuasion. And of those who could be persuaded, it was predominantly women who, like they were by Christianity in Rome, most easily fooled. And who, being fooled in large numbers, tilted votes, taught children in schools, provided income and incentives to universities as a new customer base, and staffed marketing departments and advertising agencies. Contrary to current opinion, it is very easy to do something about it. It is merely costly, not hard. Because contemporary civilization is fragile. But to succeed in any campaign, we must have a better idea, better articulated, better leaders, better organization, and a means of persecuting lying, deceit, pseudoscience, and propaganda. Because gossip and deceit are cheap and easily made plentiful. That is their tactic. Women evolved to use gossip to rally against alphas. By contrast, violence and truth are expensive and hard to make plentiful. But that is both our tactic and our objective: truth and the threat of violence for those who gossip and deceive. We require: A goal. A plan. A moral justification for violence. And the will to pay the high cost of saving our civilization from the age of lies and propaganda made possible by the introduction of women into the politics of our high trust polity under open enfranchisement representative democracy, without houses of government that represent our competing class and gender interests. Our opponents’ strategy is purely verbal – so they need numbers. We don’t. We need a few good men willing to risk life and liberty. Because the liars have created pervasive fragility that can easily be exploited. Once we have actionable demands, we can raise the cost of not meeting those demands by taking advantage of that fragility. Whether it be nullification, secession, revolution, or civil war, is merely a measure of the cost that the people are willing to pay to preserve their tyranny of the masses. We need a solution to post-democratic equalitarian government, the construction of immoral laws, judicial activism in order to do something other than just rebel. Which is what I work on full time. Thankfully, success is more possible now than it has ever been. Liberty, truth and rule of law and natural aristocracy in our lifetime, or tyranny, deceit, propaganda, Brazil and castes in the next. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev, Ukraine. http://freenortherner.com/2015/…/07/nihilism-and-utopianism/

    • Propertarianism’s High Barrier to Entry is a “Good”

      [O]ne of the problems that plagues both Neo-Reaction and Libertinism(Rothbardian Cosmopolitan libertarianism), is the lack of formal logic (building proofs: criticisms) means both disciplines attract lunatics. And there isn’t any defense against it. I had always considered Propertarianism’s rather challenging learning curve as a negative. But in light of what I’ve seen, it’s actually a positive. Either you can construct a Propertarian argument or you can’t. If you can’t, well, then you don’t have anything to say.

    • Propertarianism’s High Barrier to Entry is a “Good”

      [O]ne of the problems that plagues both Neo-Reaction and Libertinism(Rothbardian Cosmopolitan libertarianism), is the lack of formal logic (building proofs: criticisms) means both disciplines attract lunatics. And there isn’t any defense against it. I had always considered Propertarianism’s rather challenging learning curve as a negative. But in light of what I’ve seen, it’s actually a positive. Either you can construct a Propertarian argument or you can’t. If you can’t, well, then you don’t have anything to say.

    • I Want The Churches.  All of Them.

      [C]hurches are our monuments. Monuments claim territory. I want the churches: Arsenal. Banking and Credit. Education. Training. It sounds nuts. But it’s brilliant really.

      (h/t: Aaron Kahland )