Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION AND NON PRODUCTIVE INTERACTION (ed

    THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PRODUCTIVE COOPERATION AND NON PRODUCTIVE INTERACTION

    (edited and reposted)

    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: |<-Self, Offspring, Kin, Associates, Neutrals, Competitors, Enemies->|

    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

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-04 10:15:00 UTC

  • The Central Problem Of Violence In Human Societies? Or The Central Problem Of Free Riding?

    –“The absence of a workable integrated theory of economics and politics reflects the lack of systematic thinking about the central problem of violence in human societies.”– Violence and Social Orders (Preface).

    [T]he fundamental problem of cooperation is the suppression of free riding. Violence is but one of the many tools used by free riders. Our emphasis on suppressing violence distracts us from the insufficiency of suppressing violence in creating a polity capable of generating wealth in a division of knowledge and labor. Very poor societies manage to prevent violence and theft. What they do not prevent is every other possible means of free riding. The smaller the family size the higher the trust in any polity. But for small family sizes suppression of free riding must be nearly universal. And therefore not only must we possess property rights to allow small families to engage in production, but we must suppress all forms of involuntary transfer to lower the risk enough to do so. (ANF societies are fragile.) By eliminating free riding we obtain trust, and the low transaction costs that come with trust. In seeking to obtain trust, non-aggression is not enough. The source of any liberty was, is, and will always be, the organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms. The reason that democracy, policy and economics are in conflict is the intellectual failure to address the incompatible moral codes of the different demographic groups, and the degree of trust vs demand for intervention, that is expressed by these different groups. As such, western high trust, which is an extension of the absolute nuclear family, democracy, rule of law, and the high economic performance of the few high trust societies, are assumed to be the consequence of democracy. Whereas democracy is a luxury of the high trust society. There is no free lunch. You either accept universal absolute nuclear families and total suppression of free riding in all its forms as a high cost you must bear for prosperity and liberty, or instead, you obtain some variant of every other lower and lowest trust societies on the planet. No way out. Period.

  • The Central Problem Of Violence In Human Societies? Or The Central Problem Of Free Riding?

    –“The absence of a workable integrated theory of economics and politics reflects the lack of systematic thinking about the central problem of violence in human societies.”– Violence and Social Orders (Preface).

    [T]he fundamental problem of cooperation is the suppression of free riding. Violence is but one of the many tools used by free riders. Our emphasis on suppressing violence distracts us from the insufficiency of suppressing violence in creating a polity capable of generating wealth in a division of knowledge and labor. Very poor societies manage to prevent violence and theft. What they do not prevent is every other possible means of free riding. The smaller the family size the higher the trust in any polity. But for small family sizes suppression of free riding must be nearly universal. And therefore not only must we possess property rights to allow small families to engage in production, but we must suppress all forms of involuntary transfer to lower the risk enough to do so. (ANF societies are fragile.) By eliminating free riding we obtain trust, and the low transaction costs that come with trust. In seeking to obtain trust, non-aggression is not enough. The source of any liberty was, is, and will always be, the organized use of violence to suppress free riding in all its forms. The reason that democracy, policy and economics are in conflict is the intellectual failure to address the incompatible moral codes of the different demographic groups, and the degree of trust vs demand for intervention, that is expressed by these different groups. As such, western high trust, which is an extension of the absolute nuclear family, democracy, rule of law, and the high economic performance of the few high trust societies, are assumed to be the consequence of democracy. Whereas democracy is a luxury of the high trust society. There is no free lunch. You either accept universal absolute nuclear families and total suppression of free riding in all its forms as a high cost you must bear for prosperity and liberty, or instead, you obtain some variant of every other lower and lowest trust societies on the planet. No way out. Period.

  • Why Do Property Rights "Work"?

    [P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.

  • Why Do Property Rights “Work”?

    [P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.

  • Why Do Property Rights "Work"?

    [P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.

  • Why Do Property Rights “Work”?

    [P]roperty rights ‘work’ because they establish a monopoly of control over fragments of the physical world, and without that monopoly of control it’s impossible to both plan their use and possess the incentive to act in accordance with plan. All creatures demonstrate some concept of possession or property. (See Butler Schaeffer). Without property rights, a voluntarily organized division of labor is not possible. The degree of the division of labor (atomicity) is determined by the atomicity of property rights. The atomicity of property rights must compete with the reproductive structure of the family. So that is why different family structures use different moral codes – largely dependent upon the method of assigning land in agrarian societies. Our moral code is an agrarian moral code. The conflict in ethics has been exacerbated by increases in population with conflicting moral codes, and the rapid decline since 1890 in the productivity of unskilled labor. [S]o while populations are increasing, the number of people engaged in productive work isn’t necessarily doing so. Most people today are filling in ‘holes’ where production has lagged because of communism. But in the developed world, we have more people than we have work for. And without the credit that we can currently easily manufacture, we will contract father. This trend has no chance of abating. Just the opposite. So, under this form of production, given this distribution of abilities, given the distribution of family structures, then what is the moral and ethical basis of society? I have tried to answer this problem. I think I have. But there is no way to be sure other than to test it.

  • The First Question Of Politics: Ternary Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethics Vs Binary Ghetto Ethics

    (important) [T]he first question of politics (cooperation) is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? If we cooperate for mutual gain then I agree not to kill you and take your stuff. If you want to conduct a positive trade with me I will not kill you and take your stuff. If you try to blackmail me or cheat me or my friends and allies, then I will kill you and take your stuff. It is only rational not to kill you and take your stuff if you engage in mutually beneficial exchange. You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and violence. The logic of cooperation is ternary, not binary. It is only binary when I’m in the ghetto and the monarchy leaves us alone as long as we don’t engage in violence. The monarchy cannot trust either of us to tell the truth, so the monarchy limits its definition of crime to violence, while tolerating unethical and immoral behavior. But that is not a voluntary society. That is a ghetto within a monarchy. Just like Crusoe’s island is a ghetto bounded by the violence of the sea. But aristocracy, which possesses a WEALTH OF VIOLENCE is always in the proposition that voluntary exchange must be more rewarding than the application of violence, and that subjecting one’s self to criminal, immoral and unethical and conspiratorial is simply, always, and everywhere, unnecessary. So for the weak, the choice is between cooperation and non-cooperation, the choice for the aristocracy is between cooperation, non-cooperation, and violence – whichever is more rewarding. Rothbardians are engaged in a complex, obscurantist logical fallacy. Rothbardian anarcho capitalist ethics are PLAGUED with logical fallacies. It is, like Marxism, a rich and varied set of logical fallacies. But logical fallacies none the less. We don’t need the state. However, property rights as defined OR the NAP, are insufficient for the rational adoption of a voluntary society governed only by the rule of law, under the common law.

  • The First Question Of Politics: Ternary Aristocratic Egalitarian Ethics Vs Binary Ghetto Ethics

    (important) [T]he first question of politics (cooperation) is why don’t I kill you and take your stuff? If we cooperate for mutual gain then I agree not to kill you and take your stuff. If you want to conduct a positive trade with me I will not kill you and take your stuff. If you try to blackmail me or cheat me or my friends and allies, then I will kill you and take your stuff. It is only rational not to kill you and take your stuff if you engage in mutually beneficial exchange. You have made the error of Argumentation which is that because one must surrender violence to conduct a cooperative argument, that you assume the choice for participants is between cooperation and non cooperation, rather than to assume that the choice is between cooperation, non cooperation, and violence. The logic of cooperation is ternary, not binary. It is only binary when I’m in the ghetto and the monarchy leaves us alone as long as we don’t engage in violence. The monarchy cannot trust either of us to tell the truth, so the monarchy limits its definition of crime to violence, while tolerating unethical and immoral behavior. But that is not a voluntary society. That is a ghetto within a monarchy. Just like Crusoe’s island is a ghetto bounded by the violence of the sea. But aristocracy, which possesses a WEALTH OF VIOLENCE is always in the proposition that voluntary exchange must be more rewarding than the application of violence, and that subjecting one’s self to criminal, immoral and unethical and conspiratorial is simply, always, and everywhere, unnecessary. So for the weak, the choice is between cooperation and non-cooperation, the choice for the aristocracy is between cooperation, non-cooperation, and violence – whichever is more rewarding. Rothbardians are engaged in a complex, obscurantist logical fallacy. Rothbardian anarcho capitalist ethics are PLAGUED with logical fallacies. It is, like Marxism, a rich and varied set of logical fallacies. But logical fallacies none the less. We don’t need the state. However, property rights as defined OR the NAP, are insufficient for the rational adoption of a voluntary society governed only by the rule of law, under the common law.

  • Imperialism (Controversial)

    [I]mperialism is defensive when cooperation is structurally impossible. But if cooperation is possible it is preferable. Even then the goal is merely institutional development so that cooperation is possible. Imperialism like violence is an amoral question. Extraction is not. Predation is not. Parasitism is not. There is a vast difference between teaching people reading, writing, arithmetic, accounting, property rights, and the common law, so that you can cooperate with them rather than either conquer or displace them, or parasitically using them. And since parasitism is a way of life in primitive cultures -which is why they are primitive – it is a very long and difficult lesson to teach them. I don’t like imperialism. I don’t like empires at all. I do like cooperative production and trade. Respect for others’ property today will mean others may at least attempt to respect your property tomorrow. So I would have to separate cooperative imperialism from parasitic imperialism. I just have no idea as yet how to guarantee the implementation of it except as containment and habituated exchange.