Theme: Cooperation

  • 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.

  • Question: "What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?"

    QUESTION

    “Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

    ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

    10246714_10152433158177264_527829354130622658_n
    10341659_10152433157872264_6629092066022808336_n
    10339771_10152433157142264_4987189427452978583_n
    10320479_10152433156752264_6790035435885808311_n
    10308325_10152433156247264_1969030948940830919_n
    10269468_10152374134427264_3416725570490600838_n
  • Question: “What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?”

    QUESTION

    “Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

    ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

    10246714_10152433158177264_527829354130622658_n
    10341659_10152433157872264_6629092066022808336_n
    10339771_10152433157142264_4987189427452978583_n
    10320479_10152433156752264_6790035435885808311_n
    10308325_10152433156247264_1969030948940830919_n
    10269468_10152374134427264_3416725570490600838_n
  • Question: "What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?"

    QUESTION

    “Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

    ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

    10246714_10152433158177264_527829354130622658_n
    10341659_10152433157872264_6629092066022808336_n
    10339771_10152433157142264_4987189427452978583_n
    10320479_10152433156752264_6790035435885808311_n
    10308325_10152433156247264_1969030948940830919_n
    10269468_10152374134427264_3416725570490600838_n
  • Question: “What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?”

    QUESTION

    “Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

    ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

    10246714_10152433158177264_527829354130622658_n
    10341659_10152433157872264_6629092066022808336_n
    10339771_10152433157142264_4987189427452978583_n
    10320479_10152433156752264_6790035435885808311_n
    10308325_10152433156247264_1969030948940830919_n
    10269468_10152374134427264_3416725570490600838_n
  • Dear government. We aren’t cooperating any longer. You and me, I mean. You aren’

    Dear government.

    We aren’t cooperating any longer.

    You and me, I mean.

    You aren’t helping us cooperate.

    Me and my fellow man, I mean.

    Instead, you put us into conflict.

    Then you tax and fine me,

    For resolving a conflict,

    That you created.

    And so many conflicts,

    and so many fees,

    That, now you’re farming me.

    Like a farm animal.

    Like a slave.

    So, sorry.

    The deal is off.

    I withdraw my consent.

    I take back my right of violence.

    I take back my sovereignty.

    I know what you think:

    I have no choice.

    And, we have no choice.

    But we do.

    We have a bunch of choices:

    Some of us will leave.

    Some of us will check out.

    Some of us will just ride it out

    Some of us will rebel.

    Some of us will depose you.

    And some of us will kill you.

    The virtuous use of violence.

    A return to rule of law.

    A return to liberty.

    A return to nobility.

    A return to aristocracy.

    The love of liberty.

    The cult of sovereignty.

    The religion of non-submission.

    The government of law not men.

    One has freedom of his own choosing.

    Or one merely has permission.

    Welcome to the new revolution.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 10:31:00 UTC

  • EUGENIC REPRODUCTION WAS A CONSEQUENCE NOT A PURPOSE (smart questions from Todd

    EUGENIC REPRODUCTION WAS A CONSEQUENCE NOT A PURPOSE

    (smart questions from Todd Myers)

    TODD:

    —“Presumably if you are working on an evolutionary model, morality would be evaluated on its ability to facilitate or hinder the likelihood that genes of those practicing it are passed on. “—

    CURT:

    I think that if universal moral rules necessary for cooperation are followed the result is eugenic. I think that eugenic reproduction (getting the best to reproduce more) is a necessary and higher good than dysgenic reproduction (what we are doing now). (Why do we pay less competent people to have more children instead of paying more competent people to have more children? In a world where children are not only unnecessary but undesirable, because of our success and promoting dysgenic reproduction.)

    TODD:

    —“Am I mistaken about the purpose of your project and its relation to sociobiological foundations?”—

    CURT

    Well, no, It’s not a purpose. I didn’t start out that way at all. It’s an interesting *consequence*. My purpose was to finish the classical liberal and anarchic program by creating a universal language of morality (ethical realism), the rules for constructing political systems (propertarianism), and to recommend ONE political system to perpetuate the historical uniqueness of western civilization as the world’s most innovative and adaptive peoples (aristocratic egalitarianism). So I just wanted to convert the european tradition into rational (and scientific) language. It wasn’t until very late that I understood that the northern european (aristocratic manorial) model was eugenic. But once I did understand, it became somewhat obvious why europe excelled for its reasons (facilitating reproduction of the best, while suppressing and underfeeding the rest) and asia for different reasons (killing a lot of trouble makers as often as possible,keeping the poor in slave conditions on the edge of starvation, and using wealth to feed the noble families who would work to study.) And conversely, why every other civilization did not.

    So, the ultimate moral question though as to whether something is good or not, must in the end return to ‘is it good for man?’ Eugenic reproduction, economic productivity without population growth, continuous increases in consumption (of energy) without population growth, continuous technological innovation without population growth, and our eventual loss of dependence upon the planet for our existence, are probably all ‘goods’, and everything else is cooperating on those tests there while not doing harm to one another.

    We have too much data now about the reproductive results and costs of ‘bad people’. It’s terrifying really. Then we have the problem of people who aren’t bad but are of so little use to others that they cannot find labor. It is these people who produce the most children. And that cannot remain in place for long.

    I hope this answered your question. It was a very smart one.

    Curt.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-11 04:03:00 UTC

  • “if you’re not willing to fight for a just society, then you have no right to de

    —“if you’re not willing to fight for a just society, then you have no right to demand one, and no right to share in the benefits of one that others have fought for.”—

    Eli Harman


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-09 10:56:00 UTC

  • WHAT’S A SCHELLING POINT? –“a solution that people will tend to use in the abse

    WHAT’S A SCHELLING POINT?

    –“a solution that people will tend to use in the absence of communication, because it seems natural, special, or relevant to them. The concept was introduced by the Nobel Memorial Prize-winning American economist Thomas Schelling in his book The Strategy of Conflict (1960).[1] In this book (at p. 57), Schelling describes “focal point[s] for each person’s expectation of what the other expects him to expect to be expected to do.” This type of focal point later was named after Schelling. He further explains that such points are highly useful in negotiations, because we cannot completely trust our negotiating partners’ words.”–


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-07 14:17:00 UTC

  • MORAL REALISM: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING. (pulled out and reposted) Liberta

    MORAL REALISM: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING.

    (pulled out and reposted)

    Libertarianism argues that Non Aggression, (NAP) + Intersubjectively Verifiable Property (IVP) constitute a universal moral natural law. This is ‘almost real’. And any claim that natural rights or natural law exist is to claim moral realism (constant correspondence.)

    Now, I disagree with IVP and NAP, because I have learned that human moral standards are universally higher than that. That no groups exist and can exist by treating internal members as such. And that peoples who use the NAP with outsiders are usually outcast and exterminated.

    However, if we look at universally demonstrated human behaviors, we see that it is quite possible to identify a small number of constant moral constraints upon our action. And that these moral constraints reflect our reproductive strategies – and must. Further, that all cultures may implement more or less of these moral constraints, and that many of these moral constraints are mixed with signaling (which is not a moral constraint, but a signal of commitment to moral constraints – usually ritualistic costs that one must bear). This means that all moral systems include the universal moral rules, a level of adoption of those rules that suits their reproductive structure within the particular moral structure of production available to them, and a body of rituals and signals. And that all moral codes in all groups can be reduced to technical descriptions on the axes I have described.

    If this is true, and I am correct, and I think the evidence suggests that I am correct, then the underlying moral code is on that is in favor of cooperation while prohibiting free riding, where failing to engage in cooperation is also free riding. As such, the underlying moral intuition begins with the prohibition on free riding. Further that depending on a number of environmental variables such as geography and competition, humans will produce predictable moral codes, albeit a wide variety of signals. And yes, the genders differ in the distribution of weights that they give to those underlying moral codes.

    As such, we have finally uncovered the logic and science of morality. And as such, morality is both real, and non arbitrary.

    Thus the only means of moral action we possess is voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange, free of negative externalities, in which we contributed to production. It implies that one cannot refuse a trade that causes one no loss, takes no effort, exposes one to no risk, and benefits another.

    Everyone has something to trade. Even if it’s merely respect for life, property, manners, ethics, morals and rituals. And that is enough to trade for the benefits of the market, and the opportunity to conduct other trades with those who likewise enter into the bargain.


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 09:09:00 UTC