Theme: Cooperation

  • The absolute nuclear family only survives under special conditions: when all men

    The absolute nuclear family only survives under special conditions: when all men are in the militia, all families are culturally homogenous and near kin, there is little migration. In other words, it evolved under the middle class version of farming: manorialism, and the middle class version of farms: producing excess for market sale, and the middle class marketplace that results from the production of excess for market sale.

    The nuclear family and government pensions are a very, very, very destructive cancer.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-26 11:47:00 UTC

  • by Ivan Ilakovac I think that “time as the first cause of economics” would be a

    by Ivan Ilakovac

    I think that “time as the first cause of economics” would be a great starting point for “idiots”. Its pretty obvious:

    1. Time is resource.

    2. We need cooperation to use time effectively.

    3. We need truthful testimony to cooperate effectively.

    4. We need strict rules to testify as truthful as possible.

    So:

    5. We need strict rules of information-sharing (communication) in order to use time effectively.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-22 09:19:00 UTC

  • AND THE CURRENCY OF AFFECTION FOR THE OTHER .. Ultimately it is our mortality th

    https://propertarianism.com/2014/09/28/the-evolution-of-cooperation/SCARCITY AND THE CURRENCY OF AFFECTION FOR THE OTHER

    ..

    Ultimately it is our mortality that gives us a meaningful sense of time. The fact that life will end for all of us, and its reality is ever present as a probability percentage, no matter how low or high.

    ..

    (Affection and some of its forms: Compassion, Empathy, Nurture, Respect, etc.)

    ..

    Given this inescapable biological truth, and without entertaining transhumanism, we must acknowledge that while our time is limited so too is our capacity to extend affection to the Other. At first glance this may appear to be radically insignificant, but its implications are vast and stand in stark contrast to the dangerous ideas of our day. I put emphasis on the word “dangerous” because when an ideological framework insists that any human emotion, burdened by the very real constraints of biology, are somehow infinitely unrestricted, it necessarily creates expectations that will forever be unrealized and guide human behavior irresponsibly. In the same way, I may plant 50 carrot seeds and expect an infinite number of carrots to yield, without respect to how long carrots take to grow, or conditions which carrots require, then I have failed to construct expectations which conform to biological reality and simultaneously succeeded in deluding myself about the nature of carrots.

    ..

    When we acknowledge that our affection exists in limited supply, or at least our capacity to express it, we can begin to ask more implicative questions.

    ..

    Who deserves or is entitled to my affection? How many people can I afford to give affection to at any one time? Is my affection given freely without respect to the actions of the Other? Can one be more or less deserving of my affection? Can unconditional affection have a sensible context? Do we give affection in degrees based on the values of the Other?

    ..

    An examination of those questions gives rise to the reality that if we value the Other, our affection must have a value of its own, and its value must be inextricably linked to who we bother giving affection to in the first place.

    ..

    We must never forget that the context of affection has always been cooperation, and that cooperation has been the only successful means at organizing civilization. Affection is a critical mechanism of cooperation, and like any valuable currency, should be budgeted wisely. How are you spending your affection? Your empathy? Your compassion? Your respect? Are you going broke? Are you investing for the future?

    ..

    To learn more about cooperation:

    https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=382099852163689&id=100010910319967


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 15:00:00 UTC

  • The reason you can learn so much once you understand the basics of Propertariani

    The reason you can learn so much once you understand the basics of Propertarianism (which is really, The Natural Law of Cooperation)is that you have a universal and consistent MODEL and LANGUAGE for the analysis of human history, the comprehension of current events, and framework for future decisions.

    Even saying that doesn’t quite get it across. Because Natural Law is to society what the physical laws are to the physical sciences.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-17 22:08:00 UTC

  • NATIONALISM FOR ALL PEOPLES: WE CAN ALL TRANSCEND IF WE CAN CREATE COMMONS NEEDE

    NATIONALISM FOR ALL PEOPLES: WE CAN ALL TRANSCEND IF WE CAN CREATE COMMONS NEEDED FOR OUR FAMILIES, CLANS, TRIBES, AND NATION.

    Monopoly government prevents the specialization of the development of commons to serve the needs of the group without creating antagonism by parasitic dependence upon other groups.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 09:09:00 UTC

  • ON MY (FRUSTRATING) ADVOCACY FOR VIOLENCE That stuff that makes you frustrated i

    ON MY (FRUSTRATING) ADVOCACY FOR VIOLENCE

    That stuff that makes you frustrated is my attempt to remove from the negotiating table the assumption that we have only two choices: cooperation or avoidance. But we have the third choice (Ternary Ethics) to not cooperate, not avoid, but prey upon. This statement is necessary in order to establish the premises from which all other political negotiations (trades) must rest. I suppose I don’t need to explain why negotiations are different between soldiers in battle, merchants in a city, friends in civic discourse, and family in matters of the home. The military and judicial order creates conditions under which negotiations in commerce, commons, and family can prevail without resorting to violence. But this is only a convenient consequence of military and juridical order. In matters of truth, in matters of politics, in matters of war, the option for violence always exists, even if in ordinary daily life we ignore it. I must end this contrivance because all of libertinism is built upon it. All of social democracy is built upon it. Yet classical monarchy, and classical liberalism within those monarchies, is not.

    So please read my ‘colloquial verse of violence’ that you describe as so disturbing, as successful by disturbing you. Its purpose is to disturb you. Because all of western philosophy is riddled with this little lie of convenience that has evolved from mere good manners, to metaphysical assumption upon which much of the falsehoods of philosophy are built, no different from the falsehoods of the approval or disapproval of a god are built. they serve the same purpose: to create the lie that violence is not possible, and therefore parasitism, as a consequence must be TOLERATED.

    in other words, I’m lowering the false bar of moral discourse to its truthful origins, and removing the presumption of ‘us’, created by prophets and philosophers. Us is me. my family, my kin. The only other ‘us’ is a contract we make for reciprocity: mutual gain.

    And if that contract either is broken, is insufficient, or is undesirable then there is no ‘us’ to assume in rhetorical negotiation. Instead. Only me which I defend and you which are candidate-for-prey.

    Only the weak perpetuate this lie. Because the strong do not need to.

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-10 13:50:00 UTC

  • INSTITUTIONS SOLVE INFORMATION PROBLEMS (shorter version) The solution to ALL HU

    INSTITUTIONS SOLVE INFORMATION PROBLEMS

    (shorter version)

    The solution to ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS OF COOPERATION is (a) information and (b) institutions that facilitate the production, distribution, and testing of information. We need institutions that allow the intergenerational transfer of information. Previously savings and interest combine with property and family provided those institutions. The 20th century can be seen as a pseudoscientific attack on those western traditions.


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 11:02:00 UTC

  • CIVILIZATION: ALL PROBLEMS OF INFORMATION The solution to ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS OF

    CIVILIZATION: ALL PROBLEMS OF INFORMATION

    The solution to ALL HUMAN PROBLEMS OF COOPERATION is (a) information and (b) institutions that facilitate the production, distribution, and testing of information. We need institutions that allow the intergenerational transfer of information. Previously savings and interest combine with property and family provided those institutions. The 20th century can be seen as a pseudoscientific attack on those western traditions.

    They attacked us because we habituated our scientific culture without being able to articulate what we had habituated in rational and scientific language.

    We were vulnerable to that attack because we used democracy to overthrow the aristocracy, rather than to ask for additional houses with which to conduct trades between long term genetic responsibility (monarchy), long term territorial responsibility (nobility), medium term economic responsibility (burghers), medium term responsibility for production( man as provider of family consumption), and short term responsibility for consumption in reproduction (woman as producer of generations).

    In every civilization, every nation, every sub culture, every class, and every person, at every age, in both genders makes use of some cognitive constant against which they calculate their judgements. Unfortunately, no such constants exist. We call this assumption of constants ‘taking something for granted’. Taking something for granted makes decisions easier when we have sparse information. But without knowing that we are taking something for granted in order to make decisions easier, we do not know the limits of the decisions we can make under the assumptions that we take for granted.

    Hence the importance that all individuals of all ages, in both genders, in all classes in all subcultures in all nations and all civilizations know the limits of the decisions that they make because of the assumptions that they make. And it is not complicated to teach people this set of limits of knowledge, and why. It is certainly easier than reading, writing, and arithmetic – which are contrary to human cognitive habits,. There is nothing more natural to human cognitive habits than deciding among our wants and the possibility of obtaining them in the circumstances we exist in, with the resources at our disposal, with the abilities that we possess. Unfortunately, lying to ourselves and others about limits, circumstances, recourses, and abilities, is often easier that finding a solution without lying about them. So while we may have a desire to possess the value of the skills of reading and writing in obtaining our wants despite their cognitively unnatural demands, we may not desire to possess the skill of ascertaining the limits of our judgements in obtaining our wants despite their cognitively natural demands.

    So just as we must work hard to teach people the value of reading and writing so that we make use of the written and calculative information systems, we must also teach people the value of limits of knowledge so that they can make use of the information system in obtaining their wants through cooperation with others.

    There are differences in institutional requirements between:

    Simple arithmetic knowledge – which requires the institution of teaching…

    And literary knowledge which requires accumulated written material stored in institutions private and public so that we can access it, but requires little interpersonal cooperation other than argument to assist us in filtering information….

    And the institutions of contract, law, and judiciary And the institutions of money, accounting, and banking, require formal institutions in addition to education….

    And the limits of knowledge, requires education, and the institutions of arithemtic, literacy, finance, and at least natural law if not the law iteself. Each of these skills and the institutions that perpetuate them, make us aware of both opportunities if we learn them and limits imposed upon us by necessity when we have.

    There are few people who do not desire to read, more that do not desire to perform mathematics, more that do not want knowledge of finance and economics, more that do not want knowledge of natural law, law, contract, and court.

    But we defend ourselves against the ignorant, regardless of those numbers, in no small part by forcible education in those subjects – at least at the level to which they can find some useful (paying) labor.

    And we now require that we expand the knowledge of people prior to their ability to enter the franchise, such that they cannot be easily lied to by those who would use their ignorance to in turn use the franchise to destroy those institutions of knowledge that we have evolved, incrementally, in the west, over millennia.

    The aggression against the ignorant mind is a means of insuring ourselves that the bottom do not burden the top over-muchly, and in doing so stagnate or regress the society that depends upon individual ability to make use of the various institutions by which we manufacture, distribute, make use of information, in the pursuit of information about opportunities that we can consume, and transform into consumption for us, our families, our classes, our tribes, our nations, and our civilizations, and in the end… mankind.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-08 10:45:00 UTC