Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • PRESERVING THE BENEFITS OF LIBERTY FOR THE EXCLUSIVE ENJOYMENT OF THE WILLING By

    PRESERVING THE BENEFITS OF LIBERTY FOR THE EXCLUSIVE ENJOYMENT OF THE WILLING

    By Eli Harman

    —“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.

    This is what Curt Doolittle means when he says “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, 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.

    If liberty is thus to be manufactured, the problem of free-riding must also be overcome by institutional forms that deny the benefits of liberty to those unwilling to participate in its manufacture, and that preserves the benefits for the exclusive enjoyment of those so willing.”—

    Aristocracy in a nutshell.

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

  • INDIVIDUALISM IN PROPERTY RIGHTS BUT NOT IN LIFE Individualism is isolationism i

    INDIVIDUALISM IN PROPERTY RIGHTS BUT NOT IN LIFE

    Individualism is isolationism is loneliness. More individualism is not a solution for isolation and loneliness. Individualism in property rights is necessary for the provision of incentives, opportunity to act, and economic calculation, while preventing free riding, and forcing everyone into the act of production. However, reproductive, social, and political individualism actually produce undesirable externalities: loneliness. Alienation. The ‘american disease’ in which we all are told we deserve attention but non of us gives it, and all of us fail to understand why we don’t experience it.

    We live in a world where the only attention we obtain is that which we pay for in a commercial setting.

    America is the land of attention whores. (Speaking as an american who has had the revelation. lol)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-28 04:57:00 UTC

  • A Journal Of Aristocratic Government – Of Voluntary Exchanges

    A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT [W]e learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art. I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming. But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people. The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia. As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums. [S]o what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.) However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies. However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine

  • A Journal Of Aristocratic Government – Of Voluntary Exchanges

    A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT [W]e learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art. I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming. But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people. The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia. As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums. [S]o what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.) However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies. However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies. Liberty in our lifetimes. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev Ukraine

  • A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT We learned art criticism in college. We lea

    A JOURNAL OF ARISTOCRATIC GOVERNMENT

    We learned art criticism in college. We learned to debate in college. Both were required in the rather socratic program they taught at the time. I improved my debate skills first in bulletin boards, then on Compuserve, then in internet forums, then websites, and Facebook. Debate is an art.

    I’ve always given up on these forums though. They peak. And after that, newbies are too frustrating to mature into peers, and you rapidly exhaust the abilities of the top people. Intellectual equivalent of flocks of birds. Schools of fish. Forming and reforming.

    But the virtues of these little microcosms is that they are both ludus and circus for training in debates with passionate and interested people of similar interests. Since anyone can enter these debates one becomes familiar not so much with the academic arguments, but with the moral, analogical, and traditional arguments of ordinary people.

    The “Cathedral” is so ensconced, as is the fallacy of the enlightenment (the aristocracy of everybody, the equality of everybody, and therefore the discount of the frictions of diversity ), that academic debate all but outlaws arguments constructed on refutations of the Cathedral’s fallacies. So we are at present stuck with criticizing the cathedral, largely from outside of academia.

    As such the only venues available are blogs, magazines, and forums.

    So what I am proposing is to fund a conference and a journal of aristocratic egalitarian studies. I believe I can pull this off, at least for the first five years. If my business investments play out then I can fund it essentially in perpetuity (although I suspect I will not have to.)

    However, I would like to separate the publication into sections by form of argument. Meaning, I would prefer to include only scholarly level works, but to provide forum for moral arguments (and propertarian arguments). There is a particular wisdom to providing this contrast: it engages both the professional, public intellectual and amateur constituencies.

    However, I am vehemently against pseudoscience and it’s philosophical equivalent in continental rationalism. And my interest is in promoting works that provide not a justification for aristocracy, but a serious analysis of the structure of formal and informal institutions necessary within aristocratic egalitarian societies.

    Liberty in our lifetimes.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-26 05:33:00 UTC

  • OBJECTIVE MORALITY AND REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY (good piece) Whenever any organism

    OBJECTIVE MORALITY AND REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY

    (good piece)

    Whenever any organism that can cooperate, chooses to cooperate, it confronts the problem of free riding, which eliminates the value of cooperation.

    By suppressing free riding we force others to engage in production themselves. Many hands make lighter work, and the more of us are engaged in production the more productive we are. Moral prohibitions both prohibit free riding and as a consequence provide an incentive to produce.

    Property then is the necessary consequence of the prohibition on free riding. And given that cases of kin selection are not in fact cases of free riding (child rearing), constraints on property in-family, in-group, and out-group can be quite different. Property rights are those necessary within a given structure of production utilizing a given reproductive structure (family). Those property rights represent the necessary rules for the suppression of free riding within that order.

    Colloquial language encourages imprecise usage of precise terms. While the terms “crime, ethics and morals” each describe very different prohibitions, we conflate them frequently, which obscures their differences: Crimes describe physical transgressions. Ethics describe trust transgressions internal to an exchange. Morals describe trust transgressions into the commons. Unfortunately, while it is easy to determine whether crimes refer to cases of free riding , and largely easy to determine whether ethical prohibitions refer to cases of free riding, it is somewhat difficult to determine which moral rules refer to free riding on the commons, which are merely ritual (signal costs) and which are random error. It is difficult, but not impossible.

    For these reasons, we can determine whether or not a given criminal, ethical, or moral prohibition is a case of free riding, all objective morals are ascertainable. In any given structure of production and reproduction, we can determine whether any criminal, ethical, and moral prohibition is a matter of free riding or kin selection or familialism (insurance) within that structure of production.

    The difference is not subjective but instead a necessity of competition given available productive and reproductive structures. in other words, moral codes that suppress more free riding in broader division of knowledge and labor will allow the expression of talents held by members of the polity. Conversely, increases in free riding within the division of knowledge and labor compensate for weaknesses in the talents held by members of the polity.

    Rothbardianism fails because aggression is a means of violation not a definition of property independent if means of transgression. Furthermore NAP/IVP only limits crime, and not only does not limit, but licenses unethical and immoral actions.

    No group demonstrates this rothbardian low level of trust in-group. And those that demonstrate it out-group are the subject of persecution and genocide. Rightfully so since they are engaging in predation and parasitism, not cooperation.

    As such, morals are not subjective but objective. They are necessities of competition in a given structure of production, under a given family structure.

    In a homogenous polity of closely related outbred individuals with exceptional talents, very expansive property rights are useful for movement of the group against other groups. In a diverse polity of not-closely related inbred individuals, expansive property rights inhibit the parasitism of groups on other groups.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    “North Eurasian and Circumpolar hunter-gatherers (Hutterites and Amish, Puritans) will be more prone to altruistic punishment than those from Middle Old World culture area (Jews, Gypsies, Chinese)…. Puritan groups seem particularly prone to bouts of moralistic outrage directed at those of their own people seen as free riders and morally blameworthy.” -Kevin MacDonald

    –MORE–

    See: Family Types

    http://www.propertarianism.com/glossary/#kin

    Families as unity of cultural production

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/families-as-the-unit-of-cultural-production-in-a-civilization/

    *The Unique Culture of the North Sea Peoples

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/

    The Culture That Suppresses All Discounts, All Free-Riding, All Involuntary Transfer, All Unethical And Immoral Action

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/7158/

    The Uniqueness of the North Sea Peoples

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/

    The Ethics of the high trust northerner europeans

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/03/descriptive-high-trust-ethics-of-northern-europeans/

    Circumpolar Altruistic Punishment

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/11/26/but-is-it-genetic/

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-24 01:23:00 UTC

  • REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION (worth repeating) We are only ‘voluntaril

    REQUIREMENTS FOR VOLUNTARY COOPERATION

    (worth repeating)

    We are only ‘voluntarily cooperating’ if we have a choice to cooperate or not. We use the term ‘cooperate’, originating with human voluntary cooperation, and by analogy apply it to other creatures who simulate voluntary cooperation.

    But, how many of those creatures voluntarily cooperate, and how many of them only appear to, and possess no sentience (volition) at all? What is required of for voluntary cooperation?

    REQUIREMENTS

    – The capacity for shared intent.

    – The capacity to determine if shared intent is beneficial or not.

    – The capacity to choose to invest in that shared intent or not.

    – The capacity to signal consent to shared intent.

    – The capacity to punish defectors / cheaters, whether by refusal of future cooperation, punishment, or death.

    So while it is true that verbal language is not required, signaling is. And that’s enough.

    As far as I know, if you cannot choose, consent, and punish defectors then its not voluntary cooperation.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 07:22:00 UTC

  • FORMS OF INTERACTION – FROM WAR TO PRODUCTION TO SUICIDE QUESTION: Which of thes

    FORMS OF INTERACTION – FROM WAR TO PRODUCTION TO SUICIDE

    QUESTION: Which of these is moral and ethical or not?

    1) WAR: Both parties prey upon each other in mutual destruction (consumption)

    2) PREDATION: In which on party preys upon the other for the purpose of destruction (consumption)

    3) PARASITISM: In which one party benefits at another’s expense

    4) COMMENSALISM: In which one party benefits and the other is neither harmed nor helped

    5) EXCHANGE: In which costs are reciprocally offset without gain.

    6) MUTUALISM (production) : in which both parties benefit.

    7) COLONIALISM : In which one party pays the cost of training the other to cooperate.

    8) SACRIFICE: In which one party harms itself in order to benefit the other.

    9) SUICIDE: In which one party destroys itself in order to benefit the other.

    And, bonus question: which of these is western culture engaging in?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 06:35:00 UTC

  • ITS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY ‘WE’RE ALL THICK LIBERTARIANS’ It’s not enough to say that

    ITS NOT ENOUGH TO SAY ‘WE’RE ALL THICK LIBERTARIANS’

    It’s not enough to say that in the end we’re all ‘thick’ libertarians. That’s not honest. The ‘thin’ libertarians are wrong, and harmful to the cause of liberty. They’ve had 30+ years to test their theory, and it’s a demonstrated failure. It is a failure because it’s an unethical and immoral basis for cooperation in a polity.

    So it’s not enough to say ‘we’re all thick. The purpose of thick libertarianism is to acknowledge the failure of thin “rothbardian” libertarianism. Not to expand it. Not to critique it. But to openly state that it is an unethical and immoral failure in both theory and practice.

    Now, the criticism that ‘thick’ libertarians haven’t any answers is true. But having a WRONG answer (rothbardian ‘thin’ libertarianism) and having no answer yet are two different things.

    Thin ‘rothbardian’ libertarianism is false. Thick Left-libertarianism is not yet articulated as more than an intuitive and non-rational supposition. Thick right- libertarianism is at least part of an answer. thick Aristocratic Egalitarian Libertarianism is the entire answer. But AEL is not for free riders. It says we must acquire liberty through direct action by insuring the property rights of all other property owners.

    A lot of libertarians are trying to find a way to justify their claims for liberty at zero cost to themselves. That wont work. It hasn’t worked. Aristocratic Egalitarianism states that we must obtain our insurance against violations of our property by entering into an insurance contract with others, to employ organized violence against any and all transgressors and usurpers.

    No magical, supernatural or fantasy origins for rights are necessary.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-16 06:49:00 UTC

  • Which Is The Basis Of Social Order: The Prohibition On Free Riding Vs The Promotion Of Private Property

    (worth repeating) If I am right, and I think I am, then we just look at private property incorrectly because it’s a positive assertion. But the negative assertion is more informative: free riding. Because it is free riding that mirrors the human moral instincts that evolved with us because they were necessary for cooperation. And while we can suppress free riding (and parasitism) and obtain private property as a defense against the state, in order to form a polity we must also suppress unethical and immoral conduct so that we do not have demand for the state. And to form an anarchic polity free of the state, we must further suppress conspiracy and statism so that those who desire to free ride cannot band together to do so. As such, ‘private property’ is not the basis for society, but the basis for the voluntary organization of, and execution of, production. The suppression of free riding then, is the basis for society, and private property is one of its byproducts. Instead of only codifying private property in law, if we restate all moral instincts as property rights, then we can construct a legal code that mirrors completely the human moral code, and one which, allows both the resolution of differences over property, but also eliminates demand for the state, as well as forbids the formation of a state (monopoly). In this sense, morality, stated as a prohibition on free riding, is the basis for the velocity of cooperation, private property is the basis of the voluntary structure of production, prohibition on unethical and immoral conduct is the basis for a polity, and prohibition on conspiracy to construct a monopoly is the basis for anarchy. And altogether this full spectrum of prohibitions on free riding, delivers us to liberty and the maximum opportunity for prosperity. I think this is the correct analysis.