Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • THE ELIMINATION OF MONOPOLY FROM REPRODUCTION, PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES,

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBNg4NpDTxMEVOLUTION: THE ELIMINATION OF MONOPOLY FROM REPRODUCTION, PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND SERVICES, AND FROM THE PRODUCTION OF THE COMMONS.

    (profound idea)

    The only moral criteria I can identify is one of voluntary cooperation, and the only political criteria I can find across heterogeneous moral codes is voluntary cooperation , reflecting heterogeneous reproductive strategies. The more incompetent require mutual insurance, and the more competent require liberty. The more incompetent require socialism, the more competent require private property. The more incompetent require organization, the more competent construct the voluntary organization of production. Both the more competent and less incompetent require organized violence in both defense, and construction of the voluntary organization of production.

    There is no reason we cannot create a market for (a) the construction of commons, just as we have created a market for (b) the provision of goods and services, and a ‘market’ for (c)the provision of mates: marriage. But to create a market for the construction of the commons, we must give up on the monopoly of decision making that we gave up under alpha monopoly of reproduction, totalitarian monopoly of organizing agricultural production in the fertile crescent – and give up on monopoly of production of commons.

    I am quite certain that alphas could not imagine marriage and monogamy, equally certain that tyrants could not imagine the voluntary organization of production, and it is obvious that we now face the problem of the voluntary organization of commons. But whether a dramatic change in affairs is hard to imagine places little bearing upon its possibility. All that was required for marriage was the use of violence to produce reproductive choice. All that was required to create the market was the use of violence to produce productive choice. All that is required to create a market for commons is the application of violence to government, to prevent all involuntary transfers, free riding, rent seeking, privatization of gains, and socialization of losses from the organized production of commons: to transform the monopoly production of commons that we call government, to a market for the production of commons.

    Monopoly serves no purpose except involuntary transfer.

    See:

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-08 14:35:00 UTC

  • Explaining “Sympathize With Intent”

    CURT: CAN YOU EXPLAIN “SYMPATHIZE WITH INTENT”?

    —“Can you please elaborate on this statement: ‘We know the first principles of human cooperation: we can sympathize with intent.’” —Chris Shaeffer

    [C]hris – Another good question.

    Apes cannot seem to sympathize with intentions to any degree, in the sense that they cannot imagine what we mean by cooperating. The example given is that you can train a monkey to wash dishes but he does not understand the idea of cleaning the plate as an objective, only the experience of playing with water and plate. Dogs however, can understand our intentions. If we point to something they can understand the idea of acting on a subject. We are capable of doing this it appears, from a very young age. And moreover, if we use language to describe a situation another will ‘understand’ our motivations under those conditions. If someone does not understand, we can likewise explore how he or she might not understand and attempt to assist them in forming associations. So we can ‘sympathize’ with other humans. And we are marginally indifferent from one another (at least within our peer groups).

    Conversely, we can also subjectively test theories of incentives: whether an actor subjected to certain stimuli would either be able to make a decision, and which decisions are rational. So we can ‘test’ the first principles of human actions: incentives. And we can do so without the assistance of instrumentation (at least in cases of demonstrated preference – otherwise people are notorious for error, bias and deception). We cannot make the same claim of the physical universe. We cannot ‘intuit’ the universe’s first principles. Although Hawking seems to think we are within a century of discovering them. And should we be able to, we may be able to explain the universe with the same degree of explanation we can apply to economic (human) interactions.

    Mises attempts to express these phenomenon in axiomatic (logical and informationally complete) rather than scientific (theoretical and informationally incomplete) terms. Which is what got him cast out of the discipline and marginalized – rightfully. Despite his other contributions.

    If we see science as the universally accepted language of truthful speech, consisting of a set of warranties we expect each other to provide, rather than as a methodology for determining truth with which to persuade each other, then it is easier to make the argument that it does not matter how one investigates any particular discipline as long as when one publishes it, he does so in the formal language of truthful speech.

    This is, in practice, how the world actually functions. Although we still wrap all our disciplinary language in justificationisms.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    L’viv, Ukraine

  • Explaining “Sympathize With Intent”

    CURT: CAN YOU EXPLAIN “SYMPATHIZE WITH INTENT”?

    —“Can you please elaborate on this statement: ‘We know the first principles of human cooperation: we can sympathize with intent.’” —Chris Shaeffer

    [C]hris – Another good question.

    Apes cannot seem to sympathize with intentions to any degree, in the sense that they cannot imagine what we mean by cooperating. The example given is that you can train a monkey to wash dishes but he does not understand the idea of cleaning the plate as an objective, only the experience of playing with water and plate. Dogs however, can understand our intentions. If we point to something they can understand the idea of acting on a subject. We are capable of doing this it appears, from a very young age. And moreover, if we use language to describe a situation another will ‘understand’ our motivations under those conditions. If someone does not understand, we can likewise explore how he or she might not understand and attempt to assist them in forming associations. So we can ‘sympathize’ with other humans. And we are marginally indifferent from one another (at least within our peer groups).

    Conversely, we can also subjectively test theories of incentives: whether an actor subjected to certain stimuli would either be able to make a decision, and which decisions are rational. So we can ‘test’ the first principles of human actions: incentives. And we can do so without the assistance of instrumentation (at least in cases of demonstrated preference – otherwise people are notorious for error, bias and deception). We cannot make the same claim of the physical universe. We cannot ‘intuit’ the universe’s first principles. Although Hawking seems to think we are within a century of discovering them. And should we be able to, we may be able to explain the universe with the same degree of explanation we can apply to economic (human) interactions.

    Mises attempts to express these phenomenon in axiomatic (logical and informationally complete) rather than scientific (theoretical and informationally incomplete) terms. Which is what got him cast out of the discipline and marginalized – rightfully. Despite his other contributions.

    If we see science as the universally accepted language of truthful speech, consisting of a set of warranties we expect each other to provide, rather than as a methodology for determining truth with which to persuade each other, then it is easier to make the argument that it does not matter how one investigates any particular discipline as long as when one publishes it, he does so in the formal language of truthful speech.

    This is, in practice, how the world actually functions. Although we still wrap all our disciplinary language in justificationisms.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    L’viv, Ukraine

  • CURT: CAN YOU EXPLAIN “SYMPATHIZE WITH INTENT”? —“Can you please elaborate on

    CURT: CAN YOU EXPLAIN “SYMPATHIZE WITH INTENT”?

    —“Can you please elaborate on this statement: ‘We know the first principles of human cooperation: we can sympathize with intent.’” —Chris Shaeffer

    Chris – Another good question.

    Apes cannot seem to sympathize with intentions to any degree, in the sense that they cannot imagine what we mean by cooperating. The example given is that you can train a monkey to wash dishes but he does not understand the idea of cleaning the plate as an objective, only the experience of playing with water and plate. Dogs however, can understand our intentions. If we point to something they can understand the idea of acting on a subject. We are capable of doing this it appears, from a very young age. And moreover, if we use language to describe a situation another will ‘understand’ our motivations under those conditions. If someone does not understand, we can likewise explore how he or she might not understand and attempt to assist them in forming associations. So we can ‘sympathize’ with other humans. And we are marginally indifferent from one another (at least within our peer groups).

    Conversely, we can also subjectively test theories of incentives: whether an actor subjected to certain stimuli would either be able to make a decision, and which decisions are rational. So we can ‘test’ the first principles of human actions: incentives. And we can do so without the assistance of instrumentation (at least in cases of demonstrated preference – otherwise people are notorious for error, bias and deception). We cannot make the same claim of the physical universe. We cannot ‘intuit’ the universe’s first principles. Although Hawking seems to think we are within a century of discovering them. And should we be able to, we may be able to explain the universe with the same degree of explanation we can apply to economic (human) interactions.

    Mises attempts to express these phenomenon in axiomatic (logical and informationally complete) rather than scientific (theoretical and informationally incomplete) terms. Which is what got him cast out of the discipline and marginalized – rightfully. Despite his other contributions.

    If we see science as the universally accepted language of truthful speech, consisting of a set of warranties we expect each other to provide, rather than as a methodology for determining truth with which to persuade each other, then it is easier to make the argument that it does not matter how one investigates any particular discipline as long as when one publishes it, he does so in the formal language of truthful speech.

    This is, in practice, how the world actually functions. Although we still wrap all our disciplinary language in justificationisms.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    L’viv, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-01-03 04:34:00 UTC

  • EVERY REDISTRIBUTED DOLLAR IS A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL EXCHANG

    EVERY REDISTRIBUTED DOLLAR IS A LOST OPPORTUNITY FOR MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL EXCHANGE

    The central argument that I have against Social Democracy (Keynesian economics or dishonest socialism) is not the exacerbation of the business cycle, nor even redistribution, but that it is a means of violating a voluntary exchange between the productive and unproductive classes. Every forcibly redistributed dollar is a lost opportunity for mutually beneficial and productive exchange. And what the productive classes would prefer in exchange, is largely respect for norms, respect for commons, and status signaling. Conservatives certainly don’t disfavor redistribution, they disfavor funding immorality. Most of us would be very happy to directly pay people who behave well, and not pay people who don’t, and to avoid the entire bureaucratic expansion caused by redistribution in services rather than income.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 14:07:00 UTC

  • OUR HEROIC WESTERN STRUGGLE GOES ON (worth repeating) —“Our struggle goes on.

    OUR HEROIC WESTERN STRUGGLE GOES ON

    (worth repeating)

    —“Our struggle goes on. The constant struggle to resist the seduction that the rest of the world fell into – the comfort of lies. **The seduction by the words of priests, public intellectuals, and politicians, rather than adaptation to the actions of heroes.** Because truth, trust, production, and commons are the west’s competitive advantage against the untruthful, untrusting, unproductive, and parasitic peoples.”—

    We drag the world behind us – kicking and screaming. And nothing is more heroic or aristocratic than this ultimate form of paternalism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-28 05:08:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: “Is there an agreed upon definition of liberty?” – Karl ANSWER: Thank

    QUESTION:

    “Is there an agreed upon definition of liberty?” – Karl

    ANSWER:

    Thank you for this great question.

    Etymylogically, we can trace the evolution of the term. (the Cuniform Symbol we refer to as the first statement of liberty says ‘return to the mother’, not liberty per se, but means one’s slavery-service is done, and one is free.) In the historical record it often refers to the right to retain local law and custom while paying taxes to a central authority. (more elsewhere if you want to look it up.) But, as you suggest, because of common usage, ‘liberty’ also used analogistically in general to refer to constraints upon ones will or wishes.

    I think Jan Lester’s argument is quaint, empty, verbal nonsense, and I’ve beaten it up elsewhere. It think Hoppe’s argument is that it is synonymous with property rights, but I disagree with his scope of property rights constitutes liberty. I think Rothbard’s position is also that it is synonymous with property rights, but that he is not advocating liberty but libertinism: the license of immoral and unethical behavior, but the prevention of retaliation for it. I think Hayek’s argument is that it is a product of property rights under the common organic evolutionary law.

    So would say that existential condition of liberty is when the moral constraint that we place upon one another is applied to the organization that we call the government. So liberty merely is a name for the condition of moral constraint by the government regarding our life and property, just as morality is a name for a condition of moral constraint by individuals regarding our life and property. In other words, defense of one’s life and property, individual moral action respecting life and property, and political respect for life and property: liberty , are synonymous terms differentiated only by perspective of the subjective self, objective interpersonal action, and objective political action.

    This I think is a non-allegorical, parsimonious, correspondent, consistent, operational, historically accurate, existentially possible definition of the term. And that all other uses of this term must either equally satisfy these conditions or constitute mere analogy.

    i.e. it doesn’t matter what’s agreed upon, it matters what survives criticism. 😉

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-25 04:49:00 UTC

  • ELI ON LIBERTY Asking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation

    ELI ON LIBERTY

    Asking people to forego parasitism (if they’re weak) or predation (if they’re strong) is asking them to bear a substantial opportunity cost. They will only do so if someone stands ready to impose a higher actual cost for choosing to engage in them.

    Liberty must be manufactured by violence.

    Libertarians love to sing liberty’s praises, and there is much to be said in its favor. But it does not follow from this that liberty is always in everyone’s best interests. There are many people who stand to lose more from liberty than they would stand to gain. (And not just because they misperceive the situation.) There are still more people for whom the uncertainty over what they would stand to gain or lose would make desiring liberty irrational.

    The incentives that favor liberty do not exist by default, they must be proactively created. And in order for this to happen there must be people likely to benefit from liberty, people who can make good use of it, strong people, capable people, wise people, intelligent people, responsible people, farsighted people; in short, aristocrats. And they must organize to impose liberty on the remainder by force, and in many cases, to their detriment, or to their enduring resentment.

    – Northman

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-24 16:53:00 UTC

  • 0) That which I am unwilling to act upon 1) That which I am willing to act upon.

    0) That which I am unwilling to act upon

    1) That which I am willing to act upon.

    2) That which I am willing to warranty.

    3) That which those I cooperate with are willing to warranty.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-23 16:06:00 UTC

  • STILL NEEDS AN ECONOMY – an with an economy comes trust

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/12/21/putins-groundhog-day-the-russian-people-keep-paying-the-price-for-their-leaders-incompetence/?hpid=z3RUSSIA STILL NEEDS AN ECONOMY – an with an economy comes trust.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-12-22 03:33:00 UTC