ELI STATES LOVE USING TESTIMONIALISM
—“I love you” means “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that my happiness depends on your own, against my actions, that you will not find it untrue.”— Eli Harman
priceless.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-26 04:16:00 UTC
RECIPROCITY ON MEANS = INSURANCE (NEG.) = NECESSITY
……………………………………—vs—
……. RECIPROCITY ON ENDS = COORDINATION(POS.) = PREFERENCE
Cooperative Reciprocity on Insurance != Coordinative Reciprocity on Goals.
We can possess different ends, yet cooperate on means (the market).
We can cooperate on insurance (liberty), without cooperating on coordination (production).
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-25 05:52:00 UTC
THANK YOU FOR PLAYING IN THE SANDBOX WITH ME
(emotional moment)
Haven’t shown my appreciation lately. And I want to say thank you to all the people who follow, who help, who criticize, who correct, who advise, and especially who support me over the past few years of excitement, stress, confidence and lack of it.
It really matters to me ’cause I’m a sappy sentimental hamster really.
I can’t go thru and list all of you any longer. If I do I’ll offend someone or other.
But thank you for helping me, promoting my work, and learning propertarianism and testimonialism. Especially those who have been helping me for years.
The world needs us to help it. Lies are an infection. We are the cure.
From the bottom of my heart.
Thank you.
Curt
🙂
(no replies needed. likes are enough.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-24 06:38:00 UTC
Hoppe starts with the assumption of the rationality of cooperation. He achieves this by four arguments:
1) Isolation: Crusoe’s Island, rather than competing populations.
2) Scarcity of Goods (rather than scarcity of cooperation)
3) Argumentation and Non Contradiction (rather than incentives)
4) the rationality of cooperation or avoidance, vs the rationality of predation, parasitism, boycott, or cooperation.
However, this isn’t ‘true’ in any sense of the word. It’s half true. Like most cosmopolitanisms it is a half truth relying upon suggestion for completion of the imaginary construct. Its appealing to your altrusim. To your ‘libertarian instincts” rather than your reason. What is unseen (unstated) is more important than what is stated.
Instead, I start with:
1) Competition: The Pontic steppe populated with competing groups across the european plain, and the difficulty in constructing property under those conditions.
2) Cooperation: ensuring cooperation is rational: why would I not just kill you and take your stuff? Because this is the starting point of negotiations.
3) The Scarcity of Cooperation: the only substantial scarcity is cooperation. It is cooperation that makes goods and services not scarce.
4) The Scarcity of Time: Cooperation reduces the time cost of goods, so that we make everything cheaper.
5) The incremental suppression of parasitism. To maintain incentives to cooperate under increasingly complex cooperation we must incrementally suppress every innovation in parasitism.
6) The expansion of suppression (colonization) of less parasitic cultures.
This is the difference between Hoppe’s rational justification, and my scientific explanation.
Curt Doolittle
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 08:45:00 UTC
You either have natural law, natural rights, and cooperation. Or you have unnatural law, arbitrary permission, and slavery.
There really isn’t a choice.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 05:33:00 UTC
(I love to make people laugh. Or smile. Or just feel that the world is sometimes a good place because some of us care about *everyone* in the commons.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 03:15:00 UTC
[W]e can fail to construct a market. But the market for goods and services can’t fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for goods and services cannot provide a desired commons, then that’s the providence of the market for commons (‘government’). We can fail to construct a market for commons (‘government’). But the market for commons cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for commons cannot provide a desired employment or consumption, then that’s the providence of the market for reproduction. We can fail to construct a market for reproduction, but the market for reproduction cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. Markets don’t fail. Families fail to produce offspring capable of providing goods, services, and commons, or producing too many offspring for the market for goods, services, and commons to serve. The family is the source of all that follows: reproduction, production, and commons. The family requires individuals who limit their reproduction to that which they can provide for. That is the source of our failure to produce markets for goods and services, and markets for commons (“governments”) to provide goods, services, and commons for all. We have failed to maintain a market for commons by destroying the houses of the monarchy(military), aristocracy(land), Commons(industry), and Church(dependents) – which functioned as a market for commons between the classes. We have failed to produce a market for reproduction, by reversing the demand for self provision of one’s offspring, and causing the failure of our markets both private and common. We have failed more so by reversing 1000 years of genetic pacification and, importing the offspring of those not genetically pacified. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
[W]e can fail to construct a market. But the market for goods and services can’t fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for goods and services cannot provide a desired commons, then that’s the providence of the market for commons (‘government’). We can fail to construct a market for commons (‘government’). But the market for commons cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. If the market for commons cannot provide a desired employment or consumption, then that’s the providence of the market for reproduction. We can fail to construct a market for reproduction, but the market for reproduction cannot fail – that’s logically impossible. Markets don’t fail. Families fail to produce offspring capable of providing goods, services, and commons, or producing too many offspring for the market for goods, services, and commons to serve. The family is the source of all that follows: reproduction, production, and commons. The family requires individuals who limit their reproduction to that which they can provide for. That is the source of our failure to produce markets for goods and services, and markets for commons (“governments”) to provide goods, services, and commons for all. We have failed to maintain a market for commons by destroying the houses of the monarchy(military), aristocracy(land), Commons(industry), and Church(dependents) – which functioned as a market for commons between the classes. We have failed to produce a market for reproduction, by reversing the demand for self provision of one’s offspring, and causing the failure of our markets both private and common. We have failed more so by reversing 1000 years of genetic pacification and, importing the offspring of those not genetically pacified. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
THE SOURCE AND CONSTRUCTION OF NATURAL RIGHTS.
All animals that can move seek to acquire.
What they acquire they treat as their property: they defend it.
Cooperation is disproportionately rewarding for acquisition.
But cooperation invites free riding, so we punish free riders (parasites) to preserve the disproportionate rewards of cooperation.
This is the source of natural law.
The desire for Liberty competes with the desire for consumption, which competes for the desire for insurance, all of which compete with the desire for dominance or cheating ( free riding/parasitism).
Hence Liberty is a desire of a minority, security the desire of the majority; and those who desire Liberty and security conspire to control those who wish to live parasitically.
This is the correct origin of natural law.
Natural rights are something we often desire.
So we advertise that we desire them.
But to exist we must construct them. The only way to construct them is thru exchange of them as mutual guarantee and mutual insurance.
Attempts to cast rights as existential are attempts to obtain those rights without paying the high cost of them: the reciprocal insurance of others against the abridgment of them by third parties.
This is correct.
Libertinism states all of this falsely as an act of fraud: escaping the western traditional contract that only those who will fight to protect property may enter into the agreement for reciprocal grant of insurance.
That is the full answer Uncolored by the false promise of libertinism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-01-20 13:34:00 UTC
THIS IS THE MOST ACCURATE FRAMING OF THE ECONOMIC MOVEMENTS CURRENTLY AVAILABLE TO US.
1 – Austrian economics seeks to eliminate asymmetries of knowledge so that people can cooperate voluntarily under the optimum possible conditions. So as a movement, Austrian economics was a social science. In other words, they want to improve our information.
2 – American (Chicago) economics seeks to identify rule of law, so that economics can be constructed as a formula under rule of law – eliminating discretionary toying with the economy, just as rule of law eliminates discretionary toying with the polity. In other words, they want to manipulate information as little as possible.
3 – Saltwater (New York/California) economics seeks to identify the maximum disinformation that the government can insert into the economy with which to farm taxes, consume, and redistribute them, while preserving the incentive to keep working and risking capital (the hamster wheel), and to create sufficient knowledge of how to use disinformation that policy makers have full discretion.
https://www.quora.com/Is-Keynsian-economics-better-for-America-than-Austrian-economics