Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • Liberty Is Not A Product of Permission, But Of Choice

    [W]ithout states how is liberty enforced? It’s enforced aristocratically: by violence under the ternary logic of cooperation: Null-violence, 0-boycott, 1-cooperation. If another individual desires property rights we grant them to one another in exchange for fighting to preserve those rights from all comers. *We grant that right regardless of state, country, nation, or boundary*. That is the origin and institution of aristocratic egalitarian liberty. Egalitarian meaning: “anyone who is willing to fight for property rights will be given property rights by all others in exchange.” And by contrast, those who do not demand property rights, will not fight for them, shall not be granted them. Everything else is masturbatory begging for permission by slaves. [Y]ou cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.

    COMMENTS Curt Doolittle (Putting violence back into liberty one paragraph at a time.) Lee C Waaks If by violence, you mean private defense agencies armed with a can of whoop ass, I am all for it. Adrian Nielsen There can still be an institution that engages in violence but not a state. The problem with the state: social contract. Only pacifist libertarians are against violence. Except for them, violence within liberty is not a novel idea. Darcy Neal Donnelly How do you defend you life (property) against a mosquito (parasite) or a pack of wolves (predators)? Do you beg or do you engage to the death? Curt Doolittle How have we done it in history? Militia

  • Liberty Is Not A Product of Permission, But Of Choice

    [W]ithout states how is liberty enforced? It’s enforced aristocratically: by violence under the ternary logic of cooperation: Null-violence, 0-boycott, 1-cooperation. If another individual desires property rights we grant them to one another in exchange for fighting to preserve those rights from all comers. *We grant that right regardless of state, country, nation, or boundary*. That is the origin and institution of aristocratic egalitarian liberty. Egalitarian meaning: “anyone who is willing to fight for property rights will be given property rights by all others in exchange.” And by contrast, those who do not demand property rights, will not fight for them, shall not be granted them. Everything else is masturbatory begging for permission by slaves. [Y]ou cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.

    COMMENTS Curt Doolittle (Putting violence back into liberty one paragraph at a time.) Lee C Waaks If by violence, you mean private defense agencies armed with a can of whoop ass, I am all for it. Adrian Nielsen There can still be an institution that engages in violence but not a state. The problem with the state: social contract. Only pacifist libertarians are against violence. Except for them, violence within liberty is not a novel idea. Darcy Neal Donnelly How do you defend you life (property) against a mosquito (parasite) or a pack of wolves (predators)? Do you beg or do you engage to the death? Curt Doolittle How have we done it in history? Militia

  • Under Ternary Logic We Get "Seller Beware"

    –BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)

  • Under Ternary Logic We Get “Seller Beware”

    –BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)

  • Under Ternary Logic We Get "Seller Beware"

    –BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)

  • Under Ternary Logic We Get “Seller Beware”

    –BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)

  • The Difference Between Productive Cooperation and Non-Productive Interaction

    PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS Let me ‘get all Propertarian’ here. Define properties, axis, actions, Property, and costs. BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TABLE: Ternary : Neutral(Null), Benefit (True), Harm False) RESULTS (In Descending Order) 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF 5) (?): both are harmed : FF OPPORTUNITY COSTS vs FIXED PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION The biological model above does not account for opportunity costs from production, where production in a division of labor. We must correct the difference between organisms that engage in production and those that do not. An opportunity cost is the DIFFERENCE between one choice and another. In other words, only mutually productive exchanges are free of loss. ie: there is only one T position in the truth table. Unlike non-producing organisms. Biology is a poor analogy, because production is nearly unique to man. Lets see if I can simplify this even more without losing the central idea. EXAMPLE A and B engage in a mutually productive exchange. Neither A nor B at this moment have a more productive exchange to engage in. This is the maximum yield any action can produce, at zero opportunity cost. Every action OTHER than this one decreases the benefit and increases the opportunity cost from zero. CORRECTED TRUTH TABLE P= Production , ~P = Lost opportunity for production, H=harm 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT => P1 + P2 = TRUE 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN=> P1 + ~P2 = FALSE 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF=> P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF=>~P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 5) (?): both are harmed : FF => ~P1 + H1 + ~P2 + H1 = FALSE EXCEPTION: MODIFIED BY KIN SELECTION Genetic Distance: || Humans demonstrate kin selection; treatment of self, near genes and farther genes as priorities with marginal indifference applied to offspring. INSTINCTS a) desire for cooperation (to reduce costs by increasing productivity) b) prohibition on free riding (cheating as defense against parasitism) CONCLUSION Humans engage in cooperation, eschew free riding, and in any act of cooperation, opportunity costs guarantee that all non-productive exchanges (aside from kin selection) are net losses. This is different from biological organisms who do not have the ability to cooperate on production by choosing between opportunity costs. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • The Difference Between Productive Cooperation and Non-Productive Interaction

    PROPERTARIAN ANALYSIS Let me ‘get all Propertarian’ here. Define properties, axis, actions, Property, and costs. BIOLOGICAL TRUTH TABLE: Ternary : Neutral(Null), Benefit (True), Harm False) RESULTS (In Descending Order) 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF 5) (?): both are harmed : FF OPPORTUNITY COSTS vs FIXED PRODUCTION/CONSUMPTION The biological model above does not account for opportunity costs from production, where production in a division of labor. We must correct the difference between organisms that engage in production and those that do not. An opportunity cost is the DIFFERENCE between one choice and another. In other words, only mutually productive exchanges are free of loss. ie: there is only one T position in the truth table. Unlike non-producing organisms. Biology is a poor analogy, because production is nearly unique to man. Lets see if I can simplify this even more without losing the central idea. EXAMPLE A and B engage in a mutually productive exchange. Neither A nor B at this moment have a more productive exchange to engage in. This is the maximum yield any action can produce, at zero opportunity cost. Every action OTHER than this one decreases the benefit and increases the opportunity cost from zero. CORRECTED TRUTH TABLE P= Production , ~P = Lost opportunity for production, H=harm 1) Mutualism: both organisms benefit. TT => P1 + P2 = TRUE 2) Commensalism: one benefits without affecting the other. TN=> P1 + ~P2 = FALSE 3) Parasitism: one benefits while the other is harmed. TF=> P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 4) Amensalism: one is unaffected and the other is harmed NF=>~P1 + ~P2 – H2 = FALSE 5) (?): both are harmed : FF => ~P1 + H1 + ~P2 + H1 = FALSE EXCEPTION: MODIFIED BY KIN SELECTION Genetic Distance: || Humans demonstrate kin selection; treatment of self, near genes and farther genes as priorities with marginal indifference applied to offspring. INSTINCTS a) desire for cooperation (to reduce costs by increasing productivity) b) prohibition on free riding (cheating as defense against parasitism) CONCLUSION Humans engage in cooperation, eschew free riding, and in any act of cooperation, opportunity costs guarantee that all non-productive exchanges (aside from kin selection) are net losses. This is different from biological organisms who do not have the ability to cooperate on production by choosing between opportunity costs. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • CULTURE THAT SUPPRESSES ALL DISCOUNTS : ALL “FREE RIDING”. We are the only peopl

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/THE CULTURE THAT SUPPRESSES ALL DISCOUNTS : ALL “FREE RIDING”.

    We 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 04:26:00 UTC

  • THE MORAL DECEPTION OF THE ETHICAL STANDARD OF ‘PSYCHIC BENEFIT’ (worth repeatin

    THE MORAL DECEPTION OF THE ETHICAL STANDARD OF ‘PSYCHIC BENEFIT’

    (worth repeating)

    Rothbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states.

    However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary.

    I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral.

    Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government.

    The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality.

    **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?**

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy Of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 04:01:00 UTC