Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • ARISTOCRACY AS THE INSURER OF LIBERTY All aristocracy must by definition treat e

    ARISTOCRACY AS THE INSURER OF LIBERTY

    All aristocracy must by definition treat each other as equals, regardless of our race, religion, culture, language. But that is because the contract of aristocratic egalitarianism requires we reciprocally grant one another all property rights, and agree to defend each other against abrogations of those rights, without question, regardless of sacrifice. We INSURE each other. Aristocracy is the insurer of liberty. Aristocracy crates liberty. Aristocracy Insures liberty. And the currency of aristocracy is violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 03:44:00 UTC

  • WHAT ARE THE TERMS UNDER WHICH ONE CHOOSES TO COOPERATE? –“Free men should neve

    WHAT ARE THE TERMS UNDER WHICH ONE CHOOSES TO COOPERATE?

    –“Free men should never regulate their conduct by the suggestions or dicta of others, for when they do so, they are no longer free. No man ought to obey any contract, written or implied, except he himself has given his personal and formal adherence thereto, when in a state of mental maturity and unrestrained liberty. It is only slaves that are born into contracts, signed and sealed by their progenitors. The free man is born free, lives free, and dies free. He is (even though living in an artificial civilization) above all laws, all constitutions, all theories of right and wrong. He supports and defends them of course, as long as they suit his own end, but if they don’t, then he annihilates them by the easiest and most direct method.”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-04 03:38:00 UTC

  • CAUSE OF HUMAN EXCEPTIONALISM: “SHARED INTENTIONALITY” (book recommendation) –“

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00GG0C9WK/THE CAUSE OF HUMAN EXCEPTIONALISM: “SHARED INTENTIONALITY”

    (book recommendation)

    –“Human thought, in Tomasello’s conception, is different from that of all other organisms because humans alone have the capacity to think about the thoughts of others, and do so collectively. Tomasello’s greatest strength is his insistence on relying on data to support his hypotheses, particularly the fascinating studies he summarizes comparing pre‐ linguistic children to our great ape relatives. (Publishers Weekly 2013-12-02)”–

    –“What is it that differentiates humans from other animals? It’s the question that keeps evolutionary anthropologists like Michael Tomasello up nights. But after 20-plus years wrestling with the thorny subject, he puts forward his ‘shared intentionality hypothesis,’ designed to account for how early humans learned to coordinate their actions and communicate their thoughts with collaborators. (New Scientist 2014-01-04)”–

    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-02 03:25:00 UTC

  • How Would You Respond In This Version Of The “ultimate Game,” A Famous Economic Experiment?

    Half.

    The problem with this particular ‘dilemma’ is that the amount is enough to split.

    RESPONSE
    The question is unclear that the beneficial idea would somehow be hidden. For those of us who work in this field, we know that it is impossible to promote than intentionally hide such an idea.

    Like most moral dilemma questions, the structure of the question is the problem, not human morality.  There are no moral dilemmas.

    https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-respond-in-this-version-of-the-Ultimate-Game-a-famous-economic-experiment

  • How Would You Respond In This Version Of The “ultimate Game,” A Famous Economic Experiment?

    Half.

    The problem with this particular ‘dilemma’ is that the amount is enough to split.

    RESPONSE
    The question is unclear that the beneficial idea would somehow be hidden. For those of us who work in this field, we know that it is impossible to promote than intentionally hide such an idea.

    Like most moral dilemma questions, the structure of the question is the problem, not human morality.  There are no moral dilemmas.

    https://www.quora.com/How-would-you-respond-in-this-version-of-the-Ultimate-Game-a-famous-economic-experiment

  • WHICH IS THE BASIS OF SOCIAL ORDER: THE PROHIBITION ON FREE RIDING VS THE PROMOT

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-29 02:40:00 UTC

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

    [W]e are the only people to have done it. Because we are the only people who out-bred, and broke the extended family, creating universalism. The problem is that once we abandon nationalism, our out-bred high trust universalism rapidly became a weakness that has led to our conquest by older more primitive societies. Return To Aristocracy To Save Our People, and Our Uniqueness. On The Uniqueness Of The North Sea Peoples

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

    [W]e are the only people to have done it. Because we are the only people who out-bred, and broke the extended family, creating universalism. The problem is that once we abandon nationalism, our out-bred high trust universalism rapidly became a weakness that has led to our conquest by older more primitive societies. Return To Aristocracy To Save Our People, and Our Uniqueness. On The Uniqueness Of The North Sea Peoples

  • Curing Libertarian Illiteracy

    [T]he cure to libertarian illiteracy is to keep up on research, rely on science, and not empty verbalism of continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. (See Axelrod – Cooperation. See Fukuyama – Trust. See Todd ‘Explanation of Ideology; The Invention of Europe. See Hannan – The Invention of Liberty. See Kahnemann. See RIdley. See Pinker. See Haidt: Moral Foundations; The Righteous Mind. Here is the bibliography that points to the relevant research. http://www.propertarianism.com/jonathan-haidts-bibliography/ The libertarian spectrum is less ignorant of economics, but libertarian scientific illiteracy, moral blindness, and ideological zeal is nearly universal. Human moral instincts are objective and universal if we account for differences in reproductive strategies: they are prohibitions on free riding. Cultures may randomly invent different moral CODES that incorporate more or less prohibition on free riding, and accommodate the use of property in relation to family size. But the cause of moral instinct is universal: the prohibition on free riding and the requirement for contribution to production. That’s just science. Deal with it.

  • Curing Libertarian Illiteracy

    [T]he cure to libertarian illiteracy is to keep up on research, rely on science, and not empty verbalism of continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. (See Axelrod – Cooperation. See Fukuyama – Trust. See Todd ‘Explanation of Ideology; The Invention of Europe. See Hannan – The Invention of Liberty. See Kahnemann. See RIdley. See Pinker. See Haidt: Moral Foundations; The Righteous Mind. Here is the bibliography that points to the relevant research. http://www.propertarianism.com/jonathan-haidts-bibliography/ The libertarian spectrum is less ignorant of economics, but libertarian scientific illiteracy, moral blindness, and ideological zeal is nearly universal. Human moral instincts are objective and universal if we account for differences in reproductive strategies: they are prohibitions on free riding. Cultures may randomly invent different moral CODES that incorporate more or less prohibition on free riding, and accommodate the use of property in relation to family size. But the cause of moral instinct is universal: the prohibition on free riding and the requirement for contribution to production. That’s just science. Deal with it.