Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Property? – It Wasn’t Scarcity. 🙂

    Curt Doolittle : so you agree with Tucker here? http://youtu.be/83se-G-9SeU?t=23m26s (Jeffrey Tucker AMA Hosted by Mike Shanklin)

    [W]ell, I think the scarcity-as-primary cause has been replaced with an evolutionary spectrum. The evidence now appears that: (a) Property evolved for preventing free riding during cooperation (along with mating – we dont’ know which was first – cooperation or pairing off, but it looks like cooperation was first.) (b) Language evolved to control mating (pairing off conditional monogamy – mates as property) (c) Property matured to facilitate the retention of goods and tools. (d) Property matured to facilitate capture of livestock. (e) Property matured to facilitate inheritance in families (f) Property matured to facilitate the division of labor. (g) Property evolved as a means of forming cooperative networks and positive expression of legal rules. As far as I can tell, it is the prevention of free riding needed to maintain incentives to produce that was the source of the evolution of property. As far as I can tell, it is probably more accurate to say that scarcity forced retention of redistribution within family and tribe, it did not cause the evolution of property. The hard problem that only Northern Europeans have solved, is to suppress redistribution in the tribe and family. I won’t address the evolution of shared intentionality and cooperation here. Too may different paths. But either way I think this is the correct evolution. I don’t think this is a meaningful revision of libertarian theory. It’s a correction. But the order of development doesn’t change the importance of property rights for the purpose of incentives, calculation, and dispute resolution. But it does reinforce my argument that the purpose of property is the prevention of free riding necessary for cooperation. So that property evolved a positive expression of the negative prohibition. Not as a good in itself in response to scarcity. In fact, I am pretty confident that the scarcity argument is a CROSS-GROUP problem not an in-group problem. (Again, this is why ghetto ethics were a failure – wrong problem. In group evolved prior to out-group.) [A]ctually, now that I think about it, this is a good example of why crusoe ethics are a mistaken distraction (another ghetto-ethics error) because the evolution of cooperation and property did not occur in the island-as-analogy-to-walled-ghetto, but among an extended family conducting pervasive redistribution.

  • Property? – It Wasn't Scarcity. 🙂

    Curt Doolittle : so you agree with Tucker here? http://youtu.be/83se-G-9SeU?t=23m26s (Jeffrey Tucker AMA Hosted by Mike Shanklin)

    [W]ell, I think the scarcity-as-primary cause has been replaced with an evolutionary spectrum. The evidence now appears that: (a) Property evolved for preventing free riding during cooperation (along with mating – we dont’ know which was first – cooperation or pairing off, but it looks like cooperation was first.) (b) Language evolved to control mating (pairing off conditional monogamy – mates as property) (c) Property matured to facilitate the retention of goods and tools. (d) Property matured to facilitate capture of livestock. (e) Property matured to facilitate inheritance in families (f) Property matured to facilitate the division of labor. (g) Property evolved as a means of forming cooperative networks and positive expression of legal rules. As far as I can tell, it is the prevention of free riding needed to maintain incentives to produce that was the source of the evolution of property. As far as I can tell, it is probably more accurate to say that scarcity forced retention of redistribution within family and tribe, it did not cause the evolution of property. The hard problem that only Northern Europeans have solved, is to suppress redistribution in the tribe and family. I won’t address the evolution of shared intentionality and cooperation here. Too may different paths. But either way I think this is the correct evolution. I don’t think this is a meaningful revision of libertarian theory. It’s a correction. But the order of development doesn’t change the importance of property rights for the purpose of incentives, calculation, and dispute resolution. But it does reinforce my argument that the purpose of property is the prevention of free riding necessary for cooperation. So that property evolved a positive expression of the negative prohibition. Not as a good in itself in response to scarcity. In fact, I am pretty confident that the scarcity argument is a CROSS-GROUP problem not an in-group problem. (Again, this is why ghetto ethics were a failure – wrong problem. In group evolved prior to out-group.) [A]ctually, now that I think about it, this is a good example of why crusoe ethics are a mistaken distraction (another ghetto-ethics error) because the evolution of cooperation and property did not occur in the island-as-analogy-to-walled-ghetto, but among an extended family conducting pervasive redistribution.

  • Property? – It Wasn’t Scarcity. 🙂

    Curt Doolittle : so you agree with Tucker here? http://youtu.be/83se-G-9SeU?t=23m26s (Jeffrey Tucker AMA Hosted by Mike Shanklin)

    [W]ell, I think the scarcity-as-primary cause has been replaced with an evolutionary spectrum. The evidence now appears that: (a) Property evolved for preventing free riding during cooperation (along with mating – we dont’ know which was first – cooperation or pairing off, but it looks like cooperation was first.) (b) Language evolved to control mating (pairing off conditional monogamy – mates as property) (c) Property matured to facilitate the retention of goods and tools. (d) Property matured to facilitate capture of livestock. (e) Property matured to facilitate inheritance in families (f) Property matured to facilitate the division of labor. (g) Property evolved as a means of forming cooperative networks and positive expression of legal rules. As far as I can tell, it is the prevention of free riding needed to maintain incentives to produce that was the source of the evolution of property. As far as I can tell, it is probably more accurate to say that scarcity forced retention of redistribution within family and tribe, it did not cause the evolution of property. The hard problem that only Northern Europeans have solved, is to suppress redistribution in the tribe and family. I won’t address the evolution of shared intentionality and cooperation here. Too may different paths. But either way I think this is the correct evolution. I don’t think this is a meaningful revision of libertarian theory. It’s a correction. But the order of development doesn’t change the importance of property rights for the purpose of incentives, calculation, and dispute resolution. But it does reinforce my argument that the purpose of property is the prevention of free riding necessary for cooperation. So that property evolved a positive expression of the negative prohibition. Not as a good in itself in response to scarcity. In fact, I am pretty confident that the scarcity argument is a CROSS-GROUP problem not an in-group problem. (Again, this is why ghetto ethics were a failure – wrong problem. In group evolved prior to out-group.) [A]ctually, now that I think about it, this is a good example of why crusoe ethics are a mistaken distraction (another ghetto-ethics error) because the evolution of cooperation and property did not occur in the island-as-analogy-to-walled-ghetto, but among an extended family conducting pervasive redistribution.

  • Interesting: "Know", "Knowing" and "Knowledge" As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting: “Know”, “Knowing” and “Knowledge” As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting: "Know", "Knowing" and "Knowledge" As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Interesting: “Know”, “Knowing” and “Knowledge” As Terms Of Obscurantism

    [P]ossession of knowledge is not a binary condition, but a spectrum from awareness or intuition, through hypothesis, theory and law, through parsimonious theoretical completeness, through axiomatic declaration, through tautological identity. The context for use of such knowledge in pursuit of some action determines necessary sufficiency. Despite our habits, one cannot say that one knows something without stating the sufficiency of knowledge required, and still have a decidable proposition – there just isn’t enough information there. Now, we can assume the question of utility from the context, and therefore the standard of knowledge required. But knowledge cannot be divorced from action, even if that action is merely identity or perception. But like many empty verbalisms that are not problems, but merely inarticulate language masquerading as complexity. The common fallacy of using the language of experience rather than action. One cannot sever the qualitative expression “knowledge” either from the context of an act, from choice, nor from the cost of action. We can discount these values for arbitrary purposes, but to discount cost and context in pursuit of a general rule is very different from saying that in application of any general rule the action, choice and cost determine the sufficiency of knowledge. I have been making this general argument regarding the use of the scientific method for either (a) production, (b) technological or (c) purely scientific purposes. The method we use is the same in each circumstance, but we merely apply discounts or premiums to different outputs of the scientific method. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Is The Cato Institute Libertarian In Political Views? How?

    Technically, Cato, is a classical liberal libertarian institution favoring small government, and the civil society. (Cato does work within the system and has an audience in DC because it works within the system.) The Heritage group also favors traditional society and classical liberalism. The majority of the remaining think tanks (FEI, etc) place more emphasis on economic policy and less on social (normative) rules.  Only the Mises Institute and its network advocates anarchism, and the Property and Freedom Society advocates private government. The Mises Institute takes advantage of the rabidly autistic male population seeking social connection on the internet, which gives them disproportionate presence relative to their nominal if not negative influence on policy and thought.

    https://www.quora.com/Is-the-Cato-Institute-libertarian-in-political-views-How

  • What Would A Political Economy Representative Of A Public Look Like?

    IMPOLITIC BUT CORRECT ANSWER: The lower the distribution of IQ below 106, the more socialist, and the higher the distribution of IQ above 106 the more individualist.  The higher the impulsivity (testosterone) the more insular the polity needs to be. The lower the impulsivity (testosterone) the more inclusive it can be. The lower the literacy the more authoritarian it must be. The higher the literacy the less authoritarian it can be. In all cases, smaller polities that reflect kin selection are preferable to larger heterogeneous polities.

    The data supports all these positions.

    https://www.quora.com/What-would-a-political-economy-representative-of-a-public-look-like

  • Should The Government Have The Right To Censor Videos Like Collateral Murder? Why Or Why Not?

    I WILL TRY TO DO THIS QUESTION JUSTICE.

    How you frame the question influences answers. I’ll try to give the correct answer by reframing the question slightly as other than yes or no.

    The philosophical question censorship is not whether government should have the ability, but (1) whether members of the military should or can sign a contract for secrecy inclusive of ‘accidents’ within the fog of war, and exclusive of deliberate immoral actions; and whether that contract has been broken by some member of the military or a non-military person, and (2) whether citizens, or heirs, should possess the universal standing to sue for reparations in the event that such actions subject them to harm. Censorship is always a license for bad behavior from governments, that too often specialize in bad behavior.  Restitution in court is a much more effective means of suppressing bad behavior on everyone’s part, citizen and government as well, than censorship which produces so many negative externalities.

    The combination of contract and harm under the law is superior to monopoly discretion on the part of a bureaucrat or politician with conflicting interests.

    https://www.quora.com/Should-the-government-have-the-right-to-censor-videos-like-Collateral-Murder-Why-or-why-not