Curt Doolittle

Source: Original Site Post

  • Under Ternary Logic We Get “Seller Beware”

    –BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)

  • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E')

    DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

    COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.

  • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E’)

    DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

    COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.

  • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E')

    DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

    COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.

  • Prohibiting Obscurant Speech With E-Prime (E’)

    DISALLOWED WORDS be; being; been; am; is; isn’t; are; aren’t; was; wasn’t; were; weren’t; Contractions formed from a pronoun and a form of to be: I’m; you’re; we’re; they’re; he’s; she’s; it’s; there’s; here’s; where’s; how’s; what’s; who’s; that’s; Contractions of to be found in nonstandard dialects of English, such as the following: ain’t; hain’t (when derived from ain’t rather than haven’t); whatcha (derived from what are you); yer (when derived from you are rather than your). ALLOWED WORDS The following words, do not derive from forms of to be. Some of these serve similar grammatical functions (see auxiliary verbs). become; has; have; having; had (I’ve; you’ve); do; does; doing; did; can; could; will; would (they’d); shall; should; ought; may; might; must; remain; equal. PROPERTARIANISM In theory I should state Propertarianism in E’. But it’s incredibly burdensome and there is a difference between writing laws and writing philosophy. (Yes, that’s a lame excuse. I may have to write the primary statements in E’ and let the historical examples sit in ordinary language. )

    COMMENTS Adam Voight You should write your theorems in “Lojban” or some other ideal language. While Lojban’s vocabulary is simply chosen from the world’s dominant languages, its grammar is supposed to reflect logic itself. At least that’s what wikipedia says. Curt Doolittle I think I’ll more likely choose to just find a way to annotate which context of verb to be I’m using, and avoid the two or three that are deceptive. Adam Voight You could publish it in a “facing-page” translation. Curt Doolittle Interesting. That’s close. A good idea. In keeping with the “48 Laws of Power” structure, It might be worth stating the central principle first in common language and then in E’…. Hmmm. I really like that Idea. Doesn’t burden the user but through repetition, maintains readability, and makes the point clear through contrast. Thanks.

  • The Difference Between Productive Cooperation and Non-Productive Interaction

    PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS Let me ‘get all Propertarian’ here. Define properties, axis, actions, Property, and costs. BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TABLE: Ternary : Neutral(Null), Benefit (True), Harm False) RESULTS (In Descending Order) 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF 5) (?): both are harmed : FF OPPORTUNITY COSTS vs FIXED PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION The biological model above does not account for opportunity costs from production, where production in a division of labor. We must correct the difference between organisms that engage in production and those that do not. An opportunity cost is the DIFFERENCE between one choice and another. In other words, only mutually productive exchanges are free of loss. ie: there is only one T position in the truth table. Unlike non-producing organisms. Biology is a poor analogy, because production is nearly unique to man. Lets see if I can simplify this even more without losing the central idea. EXAMPLE A and B engage in a mutually productive exchange. Neither A nor B at this moment have a more productive exchange to engage in. This is the maximum yield any action can produce, at zero opportunity cost. Every action OTHER than this one decreases the benefit and increases the opportunity cost from zero. CORRECTED TRUTH TABLE P= Production , ~P = Lost opportunity for production, H=harm 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT => P1 + P2 = TRUE 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN=> P1 + ~P2 = FALSE 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF=> P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF=>~P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 5) (?): both are harmed : FF => ~P1 + H1 + ~P2 + H1 = FALSE EXCEPTION: MODIFIED BY KIN SELECTION Genetic Distance: || Humans demonstrate kin selection; treatment of self, near genes and farther genes as priorities with marginal indifference applied to offspring. INSTINCTS a) desire for cooperation (to reduce costs by increasing productivity) b) prohibition on free riding (cheating as defense against parasitism) CONCLUSION Humans engage in cooperation, eschew free riding, and in any act of cooperation, opportunity costs guarantee that all non-productive exchanges (aside from kin selection) are net losses. This is different from biological organisms who do not have the ability to cooperate on production by choosing between opportunity costs. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • The Difference Between Productive Cooperation and Non-Productive Interaction

    PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS Let me ‘get all Propertarian’ here. Define properties, axis, actions, Property, and costs. BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TABLE: Ternary : Neutral(Null), Benefit (True), Harm False) RESULTS (In Descending Order) 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF 5) (?): both are harmed : FF OPPORTUNITY COSTS vs FIXED PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION The biological model above does not account for opportunity costs from production, where production in a division of labor. We must correct the difference between organisms that engage in production and those that do not. An opportunity cost is the DIFFERENCE between one choice and another. In other words, only mutually productive exchanges are free of loss. ie: there is only one T position in the truth table. Unlike non-producing organisms. Biology is a poor analogy, because production is nearly unique to man. Lets see if I can simplify this even more without losing the central idea. EXAMPLE A and B engage in a mutually productive exchange. Neither A nor B at this moment have a more productive exchange to engage in. This is the maximum yield any action can produce, at zero opportunity cost. Every action OTHER than this one decreases the benefit and increases the opportunity cost from zero. CORRECTED TRUTH TABLE P= Production , ~P = Lost opportunity for production, H=harm 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT => P1 + P2 = TRUE 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN=> P1 + ~P2 = FALSE 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF=> P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF=>~P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 5) (?): both are harmed : FF => ~P1 + H1 + ~P2 + H1 = FALSE EXCEPTION: MODIFIED BY KIN SELECTION Genetic Distance: || Humans demonstrate kin selection; treatment of self, near genes and farther genes as priorities with marginal indifference applied to offspring. INSTINCTS a) desire for cooperation (to reduce costs by increasing productivity) b) prohibition on free riding (cheating as defense against parasitism) CONCLUSION Humans engage in cooperation, eschew free riding, and in any act of cooperation, opportunity costs guarantee that all non-productive exchanges (aside from kin selection) are net losses. This is different from biological organisms who do not have the ability to cooperate on production by choosing between opportunity costs. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • From Free-Riding To Rent Seeking To Anarchy

    FROM FREE RIDING TO RENT SEEKING TO ANARCHY People form governments to suppress the high transaction costs of criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. The consequence is that all that suppressed free riding is simply converted into rent seeking by the bureaucracy. By forming governments, we trade high transaction costs that are pervasive (rampant criminal, unethical and immoral behavior) for low transaction costs that are increasingly expensive (conspiratorial, corrupt and exploitative behavior). The question we face in advancing political theory, is how to prevent rent seeking as well as free riding. The answer is to allow insurance companies, the common law, the courts, and a fully articulated set of property rights to do their jobs for us. Yes, there are certain luxuries we may wish to produce as a commons. There is no reason that we cannot produce luxuries as a commons. But we cannot produce laws. We can only allow the courts to discover them.

  • From Free-Riding To Rent Seeking To Anarchy

    FROM FREE RIDING TO RENT SEEKING TO ANARCHY People form governments to suppress the high transaction costs of criminal, unethical, and immoral behavior. The consequence is that all that suppressed free riding is simply converted into rent seeking by the bureaucracy. By forming governments, we trade high transaction costs that are pervasive (rampant criminal, unethical and immoral behavior) for low transaction costs that are increasingly expensive (conspiratorial, corrupt and exploitative behavior). The question we face in advancing political theory, is how to prevent rent seeking as well as free riding. The answer is to allow insurance companies, the common law, the courts, and a fully articulated set of property rights to do their jobs for us. Yes, there are certain luxuries we may wish to produce as a commons. There is no reason that we cannot produce luxuries as a commons. But we cannot produce laws. We can only allow the courts to discover them.

  • Libertarians Have A Lot Going For Us

    My criticisms of Mises, Austrianism and Rothbard are fairly technical – and they are rock solid. But we have a lot going for us: The business cycle; objective morality as voluntary, productive, fully informed, exchange free of externalities; the reduction of all rights to property rights adjudicable under common law; hoppeian institutions as replacements for monopoly bureaucracy; and the possibility of a formal logic and grammar of cooperation – are all rock solid concepts. But our ‘antique’ justifications are not rock solid. Actually, they’re embarrassingly bad and we are philosophical and scientific laughing stocks because of them. And that condition prevents us from arguing in favor of our material solutions to political economy and monopoly bureaucracy. In order to defend against postmodernism, socialism, and dishonest socialism, marxism, pseudoscience, and mysticism, I must correct our reasoning as well. Most of which is childishly pseudoscientific. I can fix that. And that’s what I’m doing.