Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unt

    Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

    (ethics)

    a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you.

    b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other.

    c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding.

    d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions.

    e) Requirement for mutually beneficial cooperation VS Prohibition on parasitism.

    ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 03:42:00 UTC

  • Lee C Waaks reminds me, as have Frank Lovell and Bruce Caithness, quite frequent

    Lee C Waaks reminds me, as have Frank Lovell and Bruce Caithness, quite frequently, that people worth debating – in the sense, that it is a mutually beneficial, exploratory exercise, are rare, and precious. And what makes all those precious people the same, is the persistent assumption of fallibility.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-26 23:17:00 UTC

  • TRUST IS THE MOST SCARCE AND MOST EXPENSIVE FORM OF CAPITAL Rothbardian Libertar

    TRUST IS THE MOST SCARCE AND MOST EXPENSIVE FORM OF CAPITAL

    Rothbardian Libertarianism is an attack on the high trust society. It an obscurant, rationally justified, excuse for advocating, low trust, parasitic ethics of the ghetto.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_capital

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-24 10:45:00 UTC

  • Immoral, unethical, whining, free-riding, coward-tarians? Yah. I know those guys

    Immoral, unethical, whining, free-riding, coward-tarians?

    Yah. I know those guys.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-23 15:35:00 UTC

  • REPOSITIONING ROTHBARD 1) “Rothbard was a great historian but a terrible philoso

    REPOSITIONING ROTHBARD

    1) “Rothbard was a great historian but a terrible philosopher.”

    2) “Property evolved first as a means of preventing free riding, second as a means of inheritance, and only last as a necessary institution for the division of knowledge and labor..”

    3) “We can still use the NAP, but we must redefine property such that it reflects human moral instincts: as an ongoing preventino of free riding by every creative means that come up with”

    (More to come)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-20 11:36:00 UTC

  • A COINCIDENCE OF INTERESTS If people all identify and seize an opportunity becau

    A COINCIDENCE OF INTERESTS

    If people all identify and seize an opportunity because of a coincidence of interests that is not a conspiracy.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-18 07:46:00 UTC

  • TRANSNATIONAL INSURGENCIES Aristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain prope

    TRANSNATIONAL INSURGENCIES

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries.

    It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology.

    Knights of just as important today as they were in the past.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-13 00:05:00 UTC

  • GENDER RELATIONS : OFFSPRING VS TRIBES Women are more comfortable with free ridi

    GENDER RELATIONS : OFFSPRING VS TRIBES

    Women are more comfortable with free riding and with charity, and men are extremely conservative about resources. Women happily sacrifice for their children. Men cautiously sacrifice for their tribe. Women advocate for their children regardless of their merits, while men are more parsimonious because they desire the strongest tribe. For men, a woman and his children are just the smallest possible tribe that he can lead. For a woman, it is very risky, especially in the ignorance of youth, to choose just one man upon which to risk her future.

    While men cannot articulate this set of intuitions and strategies, women often confuse the difference in evolutionary strategies between men and women. And particularly the difference between a woman’s offspring, and a man’s tribe.

    I’ve seen so many marriages where the woman expects the man to have the same interest toward her and the children, as she has. And there are some men who approach a woman’s sacrifice. But for the majority of us, it is a very bad investment. And with the state making it impossible for us to save for retirement, given our shorter productive life spans, and greater specialization, and greater variation – it’s now an extremely bad idea to engage in marriage.

    Marriage is an artificial construct. For a man, he is best off if he trades productivity (no longer protection) and affection for as many women as he can get attention from. And a woman’s best interest is to form a group with other women and select from different men what she wants and needs. This is how we evolved: everyone having sex with everyone else – some of which was for bond building, and some of which was for the purpose of reproduction.

    Any society that does not maintain at least the nuclear family will be dominated an exterminated by those that do.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-09 08:05:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY IS NOT A PRODUCT OF PERMISSION, BUT OF CHOICE Without states how is libe

    LIBERTY IS NOT A PRODUCT OF PERMISSION, BUT OF CHOICE

    Without 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.

    You cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 05:09:00 UTC

  • UNDER TERNARY LOGIC WE GET “SELLER BEWARE” –BINARY– Under binary logic (of arg

    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”.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 10:03:00 UTC