Curt Doolittle

Theme: Cooperation

  • THE TOTALLY COOL “I LOVE YOU” I’ve been telling people “I love you” with reckles

    THE TOTALLY COOL “I LOVE YOU”

    I’ve been telling people “I love you” with reckless abandon since I was maybe seventeen?. Started out as a joke. It’s genuine, albeit a bit over the top. I use it everywhere, every time someone shows that they CARE about me or their craft, or the world, or something other than themselves. And despite using it all the time, you know, people don’t get tired of it. Ever. And they eventually adopt using it. ‘Cause it works. It’s beautiful.

    I suspect, as a male, you must have a lot of confidence in your masculinity to walk around saying “I love you” to men and women who you’re just complimenting. But that’s kinda never been a problem for me. And at some point I realized that it was a demonstration of confidence in one’s masculinity. It’s sort of like swearing. It’s a sign of honesty.

    Most women think I’m flirting with them. But it’s just affection and approval. I hate it when women think I want to hit on them so it’s much easier to get passed it this way, than any other.

    We men may run the world, but it’s not all that good a place for us, unless we totally abandon responsibility for it – which a lot of men are doing in increasing numbers. And is an increasingly desirable option. Men are not expensive to maintain. And without all the trappings the state can’t really put its vampire fangs into you. So a good life for a man means opting out. And the data shows it.

    So, given that state of affairs, I tend to support men whenever possible – especially young ones who want to feel a bit of heroic charge from working together or fighting the good fight.

    And my advice to men is to let other men know when you love them, in a totally cool way, because what it means is that you appreciate them, and that you care about them.

    And that’s all most of us want in the world.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-29 13:22:00 UTC

  • ADVICE FOR ACTIVISTS: MASTER YOUR NICHE – DON’T TRY TO MONOPOLIZE THE DIALOG Eve

    ADVICE FOR ACTIVISTS: MASTER YOUR NICHE – DON’T TRY TO MONOPOLIZE THE DIALOG

    Every person can participate in political discourse if he works within his abilities, using the form of political discourse that he is capable of.

    Each “Degree Of Political Argument” requires greater understanding of the speaker and the audience. But given the distribution of knowledge and ability in the population, any political argument that is successful, must satisfy one or more argumentative demographics, using the language of argument available to that demographic.

    The art in creating advanced rhetoric is to satisfy the needs of each ‘argumentative demographic’.

    Unfortunately, the fantasy that we are all capable of the same degree of thought is counter-factual. We are not. As such no argument is sufficiently persuasive unless it satisfies the constraints of the majority of most argumentative demographics.

    Contrary to popular intellectual self aggrandizement, less sophisticated arguments, because they affect a larger number of people, are more influential than more sophisticated arguments.

    Scientists discover facts, philosophers integrate them into the base of knowledge, public intellectuals convert them into ideology, people elect politicians, and politicians convert them into policy.

    SECTION 1 – METHODS OF ARGUMENT

    I. PERSONAL – (SOLIPSISTIC)

    1) EXPRESSIVE (emotional agreement or disagreement): a type of argument where a person expresses approval or disapproval based upon his emotional response to the subject.

    II. INTERPERSONAL – PERCEPTIBLE WITHOUT INSTRUMENTATION

    2) SENTIMENTAL (biological): a type of argument that relies upon one of the five (or six) human sentiments, and their artifacts as captured in human traditions, morals, or other unarticulated, but nevertheless consistently and universally demonstrated preferences and behaviors.

    3) MORAL (normative) : a type of argument that relies upon a set of assumedly normative rules of whose origin is either (a)socially contractual, (b)biologically natural, (c) economically necessary, or even (d)divine.

    7) PROPERTARIAN (Causal) A rationally articulated argument that, by reducing all actions to statements of property and its voluntary and involuntary transfer, within a specified portfolio of property rights, renders all moral, ethical and political questions commensurable, by subjecting all transfers to sympathetic testing of incentives, ethics, and morality.

    III. POLITICAL – IMPERCEPTIBLE WITHOUT INSTRUMENTATION

    4) HISTORICAL (analogical): A spectrum of analogical arguments – from Historical to Anecdotal — that rely upon a relationship between a historical sequence of events, and a present sequence events, in order to suggest that the current events will come to the same conclusion as did the past events, or can be used to invalidate or validate assumptions about the current period.

    5) SCIENTIFIC (directly empirical): The use of a set of measurements that produce data that can be used to prove or disprove an hypothesis, but which are subject to human cognitive biases and preferences. ie: ‘Bottom up analysis”

    6) ECONOMIC: (indirectly empirical): The use of a set of measures consisting of uncontrolled variables, for the purpose of circumventing the problems of direct human inquiry into human preferences, by the process of capturing demonstrated preferences, as expressed by human exchanges, usually in the form of money. ie: “Top Down Analysis”. The weakness of economic arguments is caused by the elimination of properties and causes that are necessary for the process of aggregation.

    IIII. SYNTHETIC – (AUTISTIC)

    8) ANALYTIC / RATIONAL (Comprehensive: Using all above): A rationally articulated argument that makes use of propertarian, economic, scientific, historical, normative and sentimental information to comprehensively demonstrate that a position is defensible under all objections.

    SECTION 2. SOURCES OF ARGUMENT

    1) GENETIC INTUITION

    2) NORMATIVE INTUITION

    3) RELIGIOUS ARGUMENT

    4) IDEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

    5) PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT

    6) SCIENTIFIC ARGUMENT

    7) REALITY AS IT EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF OUR PERCEPTIONS

    —Note for refinement—

    1) Injunction : “if you want to know this you must do this.” Scientific knowledge is paradigm dependent (instrumentalist paradigms) (paradigm people)

    Propertarianism: instrumentalism. (a) You must create instruments (logical or physical) to record what you cannot currently experience. (b) all paradigms are instrument-dependent, and changes in paradigms are changes in instruments.

    2) Apprehension : experience (empirical/observable)

    Propertarianism: reducible to either experience or analogy to experience.

    3) Confirmation : falsifiability

    Propertarianism: additional criteria that any action is subject to praxeological testing of the rationality of incentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-29 08:13:00 UTC

  • INSURED, FREE RIDER VS PARASITE – The Spectrum Of Free Riding. Terminology confl

    INSURED, FREE RIDER VS PARASITE – The Spectrum Of Free Riding.

    Terminology conflict: “Free Rider” vs “Parasitic”

    In dry economic language, we use the term ‘free rider’. In libertarian language, we use the term “Parasitic”.

    Free Riding refers to the in-group relation between producer and free rider – in group, in-family, free riding is a form of redistribution.

    In the North Sea Model, Parasitic is accurate since the unit of cooperation is the absolute nuclear family. And free riding even upon parents is prohibited. So parasitic is the correct out-group description of the affect free riders have on the producers.

    I had always considered ‘parasitic’ a loaded term. But it’s not. Turns out that it’s accurate.

    Although propertarianism has led me to conclude that I do not see a problem with insuring people against destitution, I so see a problem with parasitism and free riding.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-26 07:40:00 UTC

  • (the logic of cooperation) is in fact the only new ‘logic’ since ancient times.

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/12/24/on-the-reformation-of-praxeology/Praxeology (the logic of cooperation) is in fact the only new ‘logic’ since ancient times. Largely because it is far more complicated that either reason (logic), numbers, (identity), operations of measurement-and-ratio (relations), and physics (causality). It was the hardest problem to solve because there are no constant relations to measure except at very large scale (aggregates).

    I just had to fix Praxeology, and it took me over a decade.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-26 03:22:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism : The Formal Logic of Cooperation

    (There we go. Today was a milestone.) Universally descriptive, universally commensurable logic of ethics. We no longer must rely on moral or rational argument in advocacy of moral, ethical or political preference. We can rely on ratio-scientific argument under which illustrates the multitude of thefts, or suppression of thefts, being conducted in any action. Propertarianism, the logic of property, is the formal logic of cooperation.

    • Terminology
    • Grammar
    • Compactness
    • Explanatory power
    • Testability and Falsifiability (via Praxeology)

    Praxeology, when corrected under Propertarianism by the enumeration of all types of property demonstrated by human action, is scientific because it consists in the universal, test of rationality of incentives, by means of sympathetic experience. Private Property as the result of the suppression of discounts. The suppression of discounts leaves the only possible human cooperation as fully informed, warranted, voluntary exchange. And the only possible means of competition, the quality and price of the production of goods and services. Cause. Private property is a consequence of the organized application of violence for the purpose of suppressing all discounts, in all human action, regardless of sphere.

  • Propertarianism : The Formal Logic of Cooperation

    (There we go. Today was a milestone.) Universally descriptive, universally commensurable logic of ethics. We no longer must rely on moral or rational argument in advocacy of moral, ethical or political preference. We can rely on ratio-scientific argument under which illustrates the multitude of thefts, or suppression of thefts, being conducted in any action. Propertarianism, the logic of property, is the formal logic of cooperation.

    • Terminology
    • Grammar
    • Compactness
    • Explanatory power
    • Testability and Falsifiability (via Praxeology)

    Praxeology, when corrected under Propertarianism by the enumeration of all types of property demonstrated by human action, is scientific because it consists in the universal, test of rationality of incentives, by means of sympathetic experience. Private Property as the result of the suppression of discounts. The suppression of discounts leaves the only possible human cooperation as fully informed, warranted, voluntary exchange. And the only possible means of competition, the quality and price of the production of goods and services. Cause. Private property is a consequence of the organized application of violence for the purpose of suppressing all discounts, in all human action, regardless of sphere.

  • “PROPERTARIANISM: THE FORMAL LOGIC OF COOPERATION” (There we go. Today was a mil

    “PROPERTARIANISM: THE FORMAL LOGIC OF COOPERATION”

    (There we go. Today was a milestone.)

    Universally descriptive, universally commensurable logic of ethics. We no longer must rely on moral or rational argument in advocacy of moral, ethical or political preference. We can rely on ratio-scientific argument under which illustrates the multitude of thefts, or suppression of thefts, being conducted in any action.

    Propertarianism, the logic of property, is the formal logic of cooperation.

    Terminology

    Grammar

    Compactness

    Explanatory power

    Testability and Falsifiability (via Praxeology)

    Praxeology, when corrected under Propertarianism by the enumeration of all types of property demonstrated by human action, is scientific because it consists in the universal, test of rationality of incentives, by means of sympathetic experience.

    Private Property as the result of the suppression of discounts.

    The suppression of discounts leaves the only possible human cooperation as fully informed, warranted, voluntary exchange. And the only possible means of competition, the quality and price of the production of goods and services.

    Cause. Private property is a consequence of the organized application of violence for the purpose of suppressing all discounts, in all human action, regardless of sphere.

    (Fk… Libertarians did it. We did it. First new ‘math’ in over a century. The solution to the formal logic of the social sciences. Durkhiem, Weber, Mises, Hayek, Rothbard, Hoppe and …me.)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-24 07:16:00 UTC

  • Lester came very close to identifying descriptive ethics of the high trust socie

    http://www.amazon.com/Escape-Leviathan-Liberty-Welfare-Reconciled/dp/0312234163Jan Lester came very close to identifying descriptive ethics of the high trust society we call northwestern european aristocratic egalitarian – the North Sea Peoples.

    He came very close. Closer than anyone else.

    And, regardless of criticisms we can lay against his work, we must acknowledge that he came very close to the correct answer: a universally descriptive system of ethics.

    Now, it has become clear, that liberty is in fact incompatible with sociobiological diversity. And I am fairly sure that it’s impossible to refute that criticism. As such, while liberty is not incompatible within a tribe of closely related people, it is entirely incompatible within diverse polity, that has access to political power, whether by bureaucratic or propertarian means.

    That said, Lester’s arguments are informative, as are Hoppe’s, for those homogenous societies with indifferent sociobiological capabilities, reproductive structures, and structures of production.

    Even if they do not help us with societies in conflict on their borders with competing social orders, or within their borders with competing moral and sociobiological orders.

    The fact that lester’s ‘externalization of costs’ is half-right, is still better than everyone else’s arguments, prior to Propertarianism’s universally descriptive ethics.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-23 08:34:00 UTC

  • HIGH TRUST PRIVATE PROPERTY AS THE SUPPRESSION OF DISCOUNTS Forcing **ALL** comp

    HIGH TRUST PRIVATE PROPERTY AS THE SUPPRESSION OF DISCOUNTS

    Forcing **ALL** competition into the market for goods and services.

    We do not need the monopoly state to suppress discounts.

    Government can consist of simple rules – a contract. A constitution.

    We can use insurance companies as our insurer of last resort, and the ‘government’ for the purpose of constructing commons.

    What discounts do you prohibit as violation of rights?

    I. SIMPLE THEFT

    1. Violence (asymmetry of force)

    2. Theft (asymmetry of control)

    II. COMPLEX THEFT

    3. Fraud (false information)

    4. Omission (Omitting information)

    5. Obstruction (Inhibiting someone else’s transaction)

    6. Externalization (externalizing costs of any transaction)

    7. Free Riding (using externalities for self benefit)

    8. Socializing Losses (externalization to commons)

    9. Privatizing Gains (appropriation of commons)

    III. ORGANIZED THEFT

    10. Rent Seeking (organizational free riding)

    11. Corruption ( organized rent seeking)

    12. Conspiracy (organized indirect theft)

    13. Extortion (Organized direct theft)

    14. War (organized violence)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-23 03:40:00 UTC

  • PROPERTY AS THE SUPPRESSION OF DISCOUNTS. (profound)(important) The Central Prob

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/12/22/propertarianism-vs-libertarianism-universally-descriptive-vs-preferentially-prescriptive-but-still-all-rights-as-property-rights/PRIVATE PROPERTY AS THE SUPPRESSION OF DISCOUNTS.

    (profound)(important)

    The Central Problem of Human Cooperation Is Suppression and Prevention of Free-Riding.

    Private property rights, or rather, absolute private property rights, effectively place a ban on all free riding. The use of the state to police the prevention of free riding, transforms free riding into rent seeking both inside the government and out.

    We advocate private property.

    However that confuses consequence with cause. If we suppress all free riding in a society, we are left with absolute private property and the high trust society.

    The state is a means for restoring the ability of people to conduct free riding via rent seeking while forcing the productive classes ever harder onto the hamster wheel of competition.

    In this long article, I summarize propertarianism, and the construction of property rights via the total suppression of free riding (technically, in economic terms, ‘discounts’).

    This helps illustrate the cause of which private property is the result.

    (Edited version of prior post)

    Source date (UTC): 2013-12-22 15:22:00 UTC