Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • I live and work for my kin. I agree only to not harm you and your kin. Some of u

    I live and work for my kin. I agree only to not harm you and your kin.

    Some of us cooperate in society so that your family and my family can cooperate instead of conflict. But the purpose of my life, the purpose of my labor, the purpose of my production – my purpose, is for my family alone, and is not to support others, but to not to harm them while helping my family. Society is merely a utilitarian function that allows my family to prosper. The attempt to steal from me and my family for ‘society’ just means stealing from me to give to my genetic competitors.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 11:31:00 UTC

  • (dammit…. Now that I have Finished Class Theory, Sociology, and Inter-Group Co

    (dammit…. Now that I have Finished Class Theory, Sociology, and Inter-Group Competition, I have to create a graphic, or some form of visually representing the different moral and immoral group evolutionary strategies that different cultures operate by…. I am not sure that I can …. wait….Yes I can. I think…. )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-25 03:38:00 UTC

  • AN INTUITION: where does conflict-cooperation sit in haidt’s foundations?

    AN INTUITION:

    where does conflict-cooperation sit in haidt’s foundations?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-22 05:10:00 UTC

  • THE ABSURDITY OF THE LIBERTINE LIE AND THE SOLUTION IN PROPERTARIAN LOGIC (worth

    THE ABSURDITY OF THE LIBERTINE LIE AND THE SOLUTION IN PROPERTARIAN LOGIC

    (worth repeating)

    Violence is the starting point for all cooperative, ethical, moral, and political questions. The first question of all ethics is quite simple: “Why do I not kill you and take your stuff?” All questions of cooperation, ethics, and politics are consequent to that question.

    It is a common fallacy, including the fallacy of argumentation, that violence is external to the question of cooperation. Arguing such is an attempt, by use of obscurant, verbalist deception, to forbid retaliation while retaining the ability to conduct fraud, conspiracy, and immorality.

    The fact that it was so easy to attract and persuade fools who fall prey to the rationalist fallacy, and to the fallacy of aggression, and even to the fallacy of argumentation, is an example of how simple it is to overload human reason.

    I find it somewhat humorous that we had to invent writing, numbers, arithmetic, history, and law, to compensate for our ability merely to remember. We had to invent mathematics, geometry to overcome the limits of our perception. We had an enormously absurd struggle to invent calculus of independent objects, and that Einstein’s (albeit not Poincare’s) revolution is nothing more than the absolute abandonment of relative framing.

    Yet the average imbecile still suggests that reason and rationalism are somehow of the same caliber as the various forms of calculation and the vast institutional networks for calculating, we have built in every single area of life, in order for us to compensate for the absolutely illusory competence of reason, perception, memory and judgement.

    Only an idiot would fall for such a fallacy. But then, without a means of calculation, it is easy to be an idiot.

    Hence, Propertarianism. ie: morality stated as calculation, independent of judgement, memory, perception, and reason.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 15:13:00 UTC

  • SCARY IDEAS FROM AN ACCIDENTAL PROCESS OF DEDUCTION…. (I need to write about t

    SCARY IDEAS FROM AN ACCIDENTAL PROCESS OF DEDUCTION….

    (I need to write about the immorality of the feminist movement, given that it breaks the contract for cooperation between the genders in a division of labor. I can support his with the evidence that women have universally acted to impose immoral laws. I can then demonstrate that it is possible to construct institutions that allow us to cooperate without the systemic theft enacted by women at the encouragement of feminists. And demonstrate yet again that we act almost entirely as gene machines, and all our language is merely justification for one theft or another, or the prevention of one theft or another: a complex negotiation.

    Now if morality is objective, and if we can conquer and subjugate pirates, and thieves, why can we not conquer and subjugate all thieves? Even purely immoral ones?

    Worse…. IS THAT WHAT MEN ACTUALLY DID?

    Roll that one around in your head for a minute: was monogamous, propertarian, paternalism merely the only available solution to prevent the natural thievery of women, as a natural expression of their genetic intuitions, which favor their genetic strategy even at the expense of in-group members. While the male strategy comes only at the expense of out-group members?

    Very weird. I have to think about this a bit more.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 07:29:00 UTC

  • THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF IMMORALITY (repost) –“Moral rules are objectively

    THE COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE OF IMMORALITY

    (repost)

    –“Moral rules are objectively expressible and universal to man. It is more that acting morally is an advantage for groups with superior abilities and resources, and acting immorally is an advantage for groups with inferior abilities and resources. Parasitism is a successful strategy. It’s immoral, but then, all people who practice it, justify their immorality.”—

    If others can exercise their competitive advantage by lying, cheating and stealing – even if by complex means, then why cannot truth tellers exercise their competitive advantage by the organized application of violence to ostracize, evict, conquer, enslave, or kill them?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 02:49:00 UTC

  • THE PROBLEM OF THE IS-OUGHT GAP IS ONLY TRUE UNDER THE FALLACY OF UNIVERSALISM.

    THE PROBLEM OF THE IS-OUGHT GAP IS ONLY TRUE UNDER THE FALLACY OF UNIVERSALISM.

    We ‘ought’ to develop cooperative institutions, even if we can’t know what we ‘ought’ to accomplish using them.

    —“As Hume has made abundantly clear, there can be no basis in physical nature of any values or norms. The is-ought gap is unbridgeable.”—

    Not quite sure how to say this, but the reason I disagree with Hume is that he means ‘universal theories (“is” statements) exist for physically transformational (physics – say of geology), genetically heuristic (plans and animals), and memory-heuristic (man or AI) entities.

    However (a) the arbitrary precision for any system on that spectrum decreases from the physical-transformational to the memory-heuristic. Meaning that the precision of predictability of any instance decreases as we progress – gasses are hard to predict, and humans are harder to predict than gasses. We can make general statements (theories) about man, but we cannot make specific predictions about any given human. And (b) for sentient creatures, given what “is” both in the universe, and in our physical properties, we can choose from a variety of strategies, but we cannot know which we ‘ought’ to choose, because if we claim an ‘ought’ as a universal strategy for all of man, all choices are to the advantage of some and the disadvantage of others, because we are sufficiently unequal to compete on equal terms. So any universal strategy ‘harms’ some body of people.

    However (c), assuming we desire both the best competitive choices for every group AND the best overall strategy for man, we can construct institutions that allow cooperation between heterogeneous moral codes (reproductive and evolutionary strategies), such as the market, because in such institutions we can cooperate on means, if not ends, and that through diverse pursuit of ends we can still ‘advance’.

    Yes it is not possible to select which theory might be right, or which human strategy might be right – those are synonyms. But we can choose what strategy might be wrong: chaos, violence and dysgenia that forbid the accumulation of capital sufficient for our long term prosperity.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-19 02:49:00 UTC

  • PARASITISM Given a sufficient supply of hosts, and given the hosts survive, para

    PARASITISM

    Given a sufficient supply of hosts, and given the hosts survive, parasitism (free riding) is an effective if not luxurious evolutionary strategy.

    Human on human parasitism is not the exception in history. It is the norm.

    Market competition and the resulting eugenic reproduction are the optimum prohibition on all parasitism.

    Marxists were wrong of course. The value of one’ efforts is in the organization of voluntary production. Including the construction of property rights, as well as the production of goods and services. Labor is an irrelevant commodity whose value exists only under the voluntary structure of production.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-16 10:41:00 UTC

  • UNIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROHIBITION I have modified the structure of phil

    UNIFICATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROHIBITION

    I have modified the structure of philosophy in Propertarianism like this:

    Metaphysics

    >The Mind

    Epistemology

    Truth

    >Cooperation

    Ethics

    >Sociology

    Politics

    >Beauty

    Aesthetics

    Again, my purpose is to unite science and philosophy and to make the use of philosophy as a vehicle for deception much more difficult if not impossible. We cannot guard against the sub 106 population. It is in their interest to be told there is a free ride if they will follow. We can however, guard against the middle class members who always make use of the people of lesser ability by their deceptions.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-08 16:09:00 UTC

  • The Evolution of Cooperation

    1) Acquisitiveness: To survive and reproduce, humans must acquire and inventory many categories of resources, and evolved to demonstrate constant acquisitiveness of those resources. 2) Property: The scope of those things they act upon, or choose not to act upon, in anticipation of obtaining as inventory (a store of value), constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.* (See Butler Schaeffer) “That which and organism defends.” 3) Value: Human emotions evolved to reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.* As such nearly all emotions can be expressed in terms of reactions to property. (imposed costs here, pre-moral, but also pre-cooperation, and only defense and retaliation, not cooperation) 4) Non-Conflict: That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they evolved to intuit as their property, and demonstrate this intuition by defense of their inventory, and by their punishment of transgressors. 5) Cooperative Production: That which humans act in concert with one another to produce. (Important take-away is that the purpose of cooperation is material and reproductive production.) 6) Moral (cooperative) Intuitions(instincts): Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding by members with whom one cooperates in production and reproduction. (This is where free riding enters.) 7) Distribution of Intuitions by Reproductive Strategy: Moral intuitions vary in intensity to suit one’s reproductive strategy. This intensity and distribution of moral intuition varies between males and females, as well as between classes and between groups. 8) Variation By Family Structure: Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production. 9) Resolution of Disputes: Property rights were developed in law as the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity (corporation) agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment. Conversely, any possible property rights not expressed, the community (corporation) is unwilling to adjudicate, restore or punish, or has not yet discovered the need to construct. 10) Instrumentation: Property rights are necessary for the instrumental measurement of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in human emotional states, and our inability to determine truth from falsehood. And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state. 11) Family: As a general rule, as the division of knowledge and labor increases, so must the atomicity of property rights, and as a consequence, the size of the family must decline {Consanguineous, Punaluan, Pairing (Serial Marriage), Hetaeristic, Traditional, Stem, Nuclear, Absolute Nuclear}. 12) Transaction Costs: As the division of labor increases, relationships increase in distance from kin, increase in anonymity, decrease common interest, and the incentive to seize opportunities rather than adhere to agreements increases. This decrease creates the problem of trust, which increases costs of insuring any agreement is fulfilled, and decreases the overall number of possible agreements and the number of participants in any structure of production. 13) Trust (ethics in production): As a general rule, for the size of the family to decrease, and division of labor to increase in multi-part *complexity* then trust must increase, and trust can only increase with expansion of property rights to include prohibitions on unethical actions. Mere ostracization, boycotting and reputation are insufficient to preserve agreements (contracts). 14) Moral Competition (ethics in political production): (morals property rights, cheating) As a general rule, the scope of moral prohibitions expressed as property rights, must increase to limit demand for authority. 15) Demand for Authority: As a general rule, if a delay in the production of property rights evolves, then demand for authority will fill the vacuum with some form of authority to either suppress retaliation (conflict) or to prevent circumstances leading to conflict, or both.