The purpose of Propertarian political institutions is permissive: to create a market for commons by abandoning majority assent.
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-29 12:13:40 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/637598991241347072
Theme: Institution
-
Haidt’s Relevance to Politics and Law
THE RELEVANCE OF HAIDT’S WORK TO POLITICS AND LAW ( RE: http://lesswrong.com/…/what_is_moral_foundation_theory_goo…/ ) [I]’ve written quite a bit about Haidt in my work on Propertarianism. Perhaps I can move the discussion out of the psychological and often pseudoscientific (preferential experience) and into the legal and often scientific (necessary cooperation) 1) Haidt’s Moral foundations are reducible to descriptions of those instincts necessary for the preservation of the disproportionately high rewards of cooperation through the various prohibitions on ‘cheating’ which disincentives and undermines that cooperation. He describes his work by referencing evolutionary theory. He does not take cooperation further into economics (productivity). Nor does he discuss the evolution of the family structure and property rights in parallel to our evolution of production. 2) The different weights of our biases reflect differences in reproductive strategy between the male and the female: the males operate as a collection of brothers defending a reproductive resource, and they attempt to ensure the strength of the tribe as a vehicle for their genes and are conscious of MERIT (costs/return). Females and seek to bear children at will and place the cost of their upkeep upon the tribe, and then seek to ensure the success of their offspring in competition with those of other females regardless of the child’s MERITS since her genes must persist. In large groups this difference in reproductive strategy is adopted by different classes as well as genders. (See Haidt’s Bibliography) 3) These moral biases also express themselves as biases in perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy and labor, where progressives (feminine) favor consumption in the short term, libertarians (neutral) favor production in the medium term, and conservatives (masculine) favor accumulation of all forms of capital (especially genetic and normative) in the long term. Each of us specializes in a temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, and labor: progressive short consumption regardless of merit, medium production, and long term defense. And we tend to be be morally blind to the other members of the division of perception. See: http://www.propertarianism.com/…/we-are-morally-blind-limi…/4) Just as prices function as an information system for the production of goods and services, voluntary cooperation functions as an information system across the reproductive division of labor. Such that cooperation between each of the specializaons provides the optimum ‘game’ outcome for all even if none is able to achieve it’s desired state of perfection. This follows monogamous reproduction which is the best for all even if not the best for some. 5) As such, the moral foundations are reducible to **statements of property rights** necessary for the construction of a state of natural law, and provide us with the scientific (necessary and parsimonious) basis for law: the preservation of cooperation. SEE: http://www.propertarianism.com/…/moral-foundations-as-prop…/ I have become very skeptical of any ethical, moral, economic, and political philosophy that is not expressed as decidable law strictly constructed from the first principle of cooperation: non-parasitism. Because that use of law was the anglo-law, natural-law, then jeffersonian model, and avoiding that constraint, is how the postmodernists (neo-puritans), neocons, socialists and libertines (cosmopolitan libertarians) managed to use empty verbalisms and justificationary rationalism to confuse the academic and popular discourse. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
Haidt’s Relevance to Politics and Law
THE RELEVANCE OF HAIDT’S WORK TO POLITICS AND LAW ( RE: http://lesswrong.com/…/what_is_moral_foundation_theory_goo…/ ) [I]’ve written quite a bit about Haidt in my work on Propertarianism. Perhaps I can move the discussion out of the psychological and often pseudoscientific (preferential experience) and into the legal and often scientific (necessary cooperation) 1) Haidt’s Moral foundations are reducible to descriptions of those instincts necessary for the preservation of the disproportionately high rewards of cooperation through the various prohibitions on ‘cheating’ which disincentives and undermines that cooperation. He describes his work by referencing evolutionary theory. He does not take cooperation further into economics (productivity). Nor does he discuss the evolution of the family structure and property rights in parallel to our evolution of production. 2) The different weights of our biases reflect differences in reproductive strategy between the male and the female: the males operate as a collection of brothers defending a reproductive resource, and they attempt to ensure the strength of the tribe as a vehicle for their genes and are conscious of MERIT (costs/return). Females and seek to bear children at will and place the cost of their upkeep upon the tribe, and then seek to ensure the success of their offspring in competition with those of other females regardless of the child’s MERITS since her genes must persist. In large groups this difference in reproductive strategy is adopted by different classes as well as genders. (See Haidt’s Bibliography) 3) These moral biases also express themselves as biases in perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy and labor, where progressives (feminine) favor consumption in the short term, libertarians (neutral) favor production in the medium term, and conservatives (masculine) favor accumulation of all forms of capital (especially genetic and normative) in the long term. Each of us specializes in a temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, and labor: progressive short consumption regardless of merit, medium production, and long term defense. And we tend to be be morally blind to the other members of the division of perception. See: http://www.propertarianism.com/…/we-are-morally-blind-limi…/4) Just as prices function as an information system for the production of goods and services, voluntary cooperation functions as an information system across the reproductive division of labor. Such that cooperation between each of the specializaons provides the optimum ‘game’ outcome for all even if none is able to achieve it’s desired state of perfection. This follows monogamous reproduction which is the best for all even if not the best for some. 5) As such, the moral foundations are reducible to **statements of property rights** necessary for the construction of a state of natural law, and provide us with the scientific (necessary and parsimonious) basis for law: the preservation of cooperation. SEE: http://www.propertarianism.com/…/moral-foundations-as-prop…/ I have become very skeptical of any ethical, moral, economic, and political philosophy that is not expressed as decidable law strictly constructed from the first principle of cooperation: non-parasitism. Because that use of law was the anglo-law, natural-law, then jeffersonian model, and avoiding that constraint, is how the postmodernists (neo-puritans), neocons, socialists and libertines (cosmopolitan libertarians) managed to use empty verbalisms and justificationary rationalism to confuse the academic and popular discourse. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine
-
RELEVANCE OF HAIDT’S WORK TO POLITICS AND LAW ( RE: ) I’ve written quite a bit a
http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/we-are-morally-blind-limited-in-our-perceptions-and-memory-and-severely-in-our-reason-the-last-thing-we-should-do-is-construct-large-risk-prone-intentionally-managed-states/THE RELEVANCE OF HAIDT’S WORK TO POLITICS AND LAW
( RE: http://lesswrong.com/lw/e20/what_is_moral_foundation_theory_good_for/ )
I’ve written quite a bit about Haidt in my work on Propertarianism. Perhaps I can move the discussion out of the psychological and often pseudoscientific (preferential experience) and into the legal and often scientific (necessary cooperation)
1) Haidt’s Moral foundations are reducible to descriptions of those instincts necessary for the preservation of the disproportionately high rewards of cooperation through the various prohibitions on ‘cheating’ which disincentives and undermines that cooperation. He describes his work by referencing evolutionary theory. He does not take cooperation further into economics (productivity). Nor does he discuss the evolution of the family structure and property rights in parallel to our evolution of production.
2) The different weights of our biases reflect differences in reproductive strategy between the male and the female: the males operate as a collection of brothers defending a reproductive resource, and they attempt to ensure the strength of the tribe as a vehicle for their genes and are conscious of MERIT (costs/return). Females and seek to bear children at will and place the cost of their upkeep upon the tribe, and then seek to ensure the success of their offspring in competition with those of other females regardless of the child’s MERITS since her genes must persist. In large groups this difference in reproductive strategy is adopted by different classes as well as genders. (See Haidt’s Bibliography)
3) These moral biases also express themselves as biases in perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy and labor, where progressives (feminine) favor consumption in the short term, libertarians (neutral) favor production in the medium term, and conservatives (masculine) favor accumulation of all forms of capital (especially genetic and normative) in the long term. Each of us specializes in a temporal division of perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, and labor: progressive short consumption regardless of merit, medium production, and long term defense. And we tend to be be morally blind to the other members of the division of perception.
See: http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/04/27/we-are-morally-blind-limited-in-our-perceptions-and-memory-and-severely-in-our-reason-the-last-thing-we-should-do-is-construct-large-risk-prone-intentionally-managed-states/
4) Just as prices function as an information system for the production of goods and services, voluntary cooperation functions as an information system across the reproductive division of labor. Such that cooperation between each of the specializaons provides the optimum ‘game’ outcome for all even if none is able to achieve it’s desired state of perfection. This follows monogamous reproduction which is the best for all even if not the best for some.
5) As such, the moral foundations are reducible to **statements of property rights** necessary for the construction of a state of natural law, and provide us with the scientific (necessary and parsimonious) basis for law: the preservation of cooperation.
SEE: http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/09/28/moral-foundations-as-property-rights/
I have become very skeptical of any ethical, moral, economic, and political philosophy that is not expressed as decidable law strictly constructed from the first principle of cooperation: non-parasitism. Because that use of law was the anglo-law, natural-law, then jeffersonian model, and avoiding that constraint, is how the postmodernists (neo-puritans), neocons, socialists and libertines (cosmopolitan libertarians) managed to use empty verbalisms and justificationary rationalism to confuse the academic and popular discourse.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-25 06:33:00 UTC
-
REASON COMPANIES WILL ADOPT OVERSING (No, I am not gonna give away the secret, b
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/4/1036.full.pdfTHE REASON COMPANIES WILL ADOPT OVERSING
(No, I am not gonna give away the secret, but it should be obvious)
Changing email, collaboration, document and task management isnt enough.
Oversing is. By V2, we are gonna blow your mind
Source date (UTC): 2015-08-25 05:49:00 UTC
-
(Interview Brief)
INTERVIEW BRIEF PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT: In Propertarian Institute interviews, we are just having a video of two people having a conversation. It does not have to be structured. The purpose of this document is for you to have a general idea of what I might talk about so ideas are not new to you when I cover them. This is not a ‘script’; it’s a ‘brief’. We are just going to talk about the subject naturally, as if we are having one of our usual conversations. I will try to cover all the points I have sketched out (I never do cover them all – we always find interesting side conversations instead), and we cover them in no particular order, and then near the end will try to wrap it all up into something actionable. AUDIENCE The very-informed, very knowledgeable, and passionately curious in libertarian and conservative (and sometimes progressive) political spectra. POSITIONING Technically, while we often use the language of philosophy, we are actually talking about the subject of political economy: the informal and informal institutions that facilitate or impede cooperation, and the resulting prosperity or lack of it. TIME APPROX 2.5 HOURS FROM SET UP TO WRAP UP Shooting is usually 1.5 to 1. Most of these conversations take an hour to produce forty minutes of video. “STUFF THAT HAPPENS” We usually have to do multiple takes of the introduction because it takes us a bit to become comfortable. As we progress it will become more conversational and we will be less aware of the cameras. If I lose my train of thought (it happens), or if I make a mistake (or the interviewer does, or the crew does) we will PREPARATION read this document. The morning or evening before we should just talk through the subject over coffee or dinner. Best is the evening before. You will have time to sleep on it. This usually ends up with you asking more interesting questions on the behalf of the audience. FOR THE CAMERA AND SOUND CREW I am far worse than a professional actor. I am very easily distracted. Every time you get up and move around you make me drop all the mental cards I am juggling, and these are often very complex cards, and it makes me angry as hell. Most of the re-shooting we have had to do is because the camera or sound crew has to move around. So, sorry. You can’t. Bring enough people and equipment that you can stay still during the video process. EQUIPMENT Three Camera Interview. Usually one or two overhead lights, and one or two backlights. We can do a two camera shoot if we film the opening and closing shots, but it is harder on the audience without frequent wide shots. We cannot do single camera shoots because the questions are too hard and time consuming to reconstruct. THE LOCATION Two chairs, table, fireside chat model. See the multitude of Charlie Rose shows on YouTube for how to ‘do interviews right’. Reasonably quiet. We have used restaurants, coffee houses, homes, and studios. DELIVERABLE A single ‘Rough Cut’ MP4 at no less that 30fps HD. And the source video of the three camera. For those that do not understand the term ‘rough cut’ it means you open and close with a wide shot, then cut between all three cameras cameras ignoring **what’s** being said, and simply try to keep the audience engaged in who’s speaking. This is standard interview editing. When we receive the video we will add titles, effects, and edit the content for quality and time, and render and publish the final video. The reason is that the content is only editable by those of us who understand what’s being discussed and some ‘bad’ shots end up being necessary, while some ‘good shots’ DISTRIBUTION we distribute using YouTube channels, and web sites and Facebook links to the YouTube channels. — SAMPLE OPENING SCRIPT — TITLE “Trust and the Circumpolar People” HOST INTRODUCTION Face the camera. “Hello, I’m ___________, and I’m here in ___________ with my friend Curt Doolittle of the Propertarian institute.” (Ad-lib… All we really need is both our names and the location). Today we’re going to talk about _____________. HOST QUESTION Something on the order of: “Curt, _____________________” (Ad-lib here….. the interviewer represents the audience, so just hold a conversation as you normally would, and interject whenever you feel you want to add something or clarify something.) CURT ANSWERS Thanks (host), and thanks for having me. (continued)
-
(Interview Brief)
INTERVIEW BRIEF PURPOSE OF THIS DOCUMENT: In Propertarian Institute interviews, we are just having a video of two people having a conversation. It does not have to be structured. The purpose of this document is for you to have a general idea of what I might talk about so ideas are not new to you when I cover them. This is not a ‘script’; it’s a ‘brief’. We are just going to talk about the subject naturally, as if we are having one of our usual conversations. I will try to cover all the points I have sketched out (I never do cover them all – we always find interesting side conversations instead), and we cover them in no particular order, and then near the end will try to wrap it all up into something actionable. AUDIENCE The very-informed, very knowledgeable, and passionately curious in libertarian and conservative (and sometimes progressive) political spectra. POSITIONING Technically, while we often use the language of philosophy, we are actually talking about the subject of political economy: the informal and informal institutions that facilitate or impede cooperation, and the resulting prosperity or lack of it. TIME APPROX 2.5 HOURS FROM SET UP TO WRAP UP Shooting is usually 1.5 to 1. Most of these conversations take an hour to produce forty minutes of video. “STUFF THAT HAPPENS” We usually have to do multiple takes of the introduction because it takes us a bit to become comfortable. As we progress it will become more conversational and we will be less aware of the cameras. If I lose my train of thought (it happens), or if I make a mistake (or the interviewer does, or the crew does) we will PREPARATION read this document. The morning or evening before we should just talk through the subject over coffee or dinner. Best is the evening before. You will have time to sleep on it. This usually ends up with you asking more interesting questions on the behalf of the audience. FOR THE CAMERA AND SOUND CREW I am far worse than a professional actor. I am very easily distracted. Every time you get up and move around you make me drop all the mental cards I am juggling, and these are often very complex cards, and it makes me angry as hell. Most of the re-shooting we have had to do is because the camera or sound crew has to move around. So, sorry. You can’t. Bring enough people and equipment that you can stay still during the video process. EQUIPMENT Three Camera Interview. Usually one or two overhead lights, and one or two backlights. We can do a two camera shoot if we film the opening and closing shots, but it is harder on the audience without frequent wide shots. We cannot do single camera shoots because the questions are too hard and time consuming to reconstruct. THE LOCATION Two chairs, table, fireside chat model. See the multitude of Charlie Rose shows on YouTube for how to ‘do interviews right’. Reasonably quiet. We have used restaurants, coffee houses, homes, and studios. DELIVERABLE A single ‘Rough Cut’ MP4 at no less that 30fps HD. And the source video of the three camera. For those that do not understand the term ‘rough cut’ it means you open and close with a wide shot, then cut between all three cameras cameras ignoring **what’s** being said, and simply try to keep the audience engaged in who’s speaking. This is standard interview editing. When we receive the video we will add titles, effects, and edit the content for quality and time, and render and publish the final video. The reason is that the content is only editable by those of us who understand what’s being discussed and some ‘bad’ shots end up being necessary, while some ‘good shots’ DISTRIBUTION we distribute using YouTube channels, and web sites and Facebook links to the YouTube channels. — SAMPLE OPENING SCRIPT — TITLE “Trust and the Circumpolar People” HOST INTRODUCTION Face the camera. “Hello, I’m ___________, and I’m here in ___________ with my friend Curt Doolittle of the Propertarian institute.” (Ad-lib… All we really need is both our names and the location). Today we’re going to talk about _____________. HOST QUESTION Something on the order of: “Curt, _____________________” (Ad-lib here….. the interviewer represents the audience, so just hold a conversation as you normally would, and interject whenever you feel you want to add something or clarify something.) CURT ANSWERS Thanks (host), and thanks for having me. (continued)
-
Our Mistaken Emphasis on Government Rather than Juridical Defense From It.
[W]e are always ruled. We are often governed. The law is the minimum rule. We can never escape law and commons and hold territory. We spend far too much ink on how to insure good rule, government, rulers, and governors. And we cannot make a good ruler or governor. We spend too little ink on universal standing and juridical defense from rulers and governors. This is because we not only seek advocacy of political orders in order to rally allies with whom me seek advantage from both rule and government – but would be constrained ourselves by rule of law if our preferred leaders obtained it. All political advocacy in favor of one form of rule, or one form of government, and another, is an attempt to circumvent the cost of exchange. But if I am correct – and the science increasingly suggests so – then we libertarians are partly morally blind, progressives are almost entirely morally blind (libertarians and progressives) and conservatives not only see clearly but are over-sensitive. And all attempts at political power are merely attempts to circumvent voluntary exchanges of cooperation that occur in the family, tribe and market. Rule that prohibits parasitism in the tribe, market and government forces us to conduct voluntary exchanges (compromises) none of which are optimum for the long term capital accumulators (conservatives), medium time frame producers (libertarians) and short time frame consumers(progressives). Just as we use voluntary exchange in the market to organize production, distribution, trade, and consumption, we organize the production of commons via government. But if government is not a vehicle for the facilitation of trade between the long(conservative), medium(libertarian), and short(progressive) factions, it is no different from not possessing a free market for the production goods and services, an not possessing money to signal demand. When free market advocates call for infinitely open markets this imposes costs on the other factions. When socialists call for redistribution this imposes costs on the other factions. When Conservatives call for the payment of normative costs, this imposes a cost on the other factions. But if we instead of imposing costs upon one another, conduct trades, then those costs are the expenses that we pay to cooperate on means despite our cognitively biased different ends. Cooperation lets a species specialize. Cooperation by voluntary exchange lets us specialized without dying off and producing a new generation. Cooperation by voluntary exchange collects information from the specialists in intertemporal reproduction: short consumption progressives, medium productive libertarians, and long term, conservative capital accumulators. By satisfying the wants of all through voluntary exchange, together we ‘calculate’ the optimum possible reproduction for all, the same way that the market calculates the optimum possible production for all. If I have not converted you to market production of commons (a market government) consisting of at least four if not five houses, each of which splits by gender, then hopefully at least I will help you understand mankind’s long struggle to increase the scope and rewards of cooperation by the use of market and voluntary exchange to produce the information necessary for us to act in our collective interests. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)
-
Our Mistaken Emphasis on Government Rather than Juridical Defense From It.
[W]e are always ruled. We are often governed. The law is the minimum rule. We can never escape law and commons and hold territory. We spend far too much ink on how to insure good rule, government, rulers, and governors. And we cannot make a good ruler or governor. We spend too little ink on universal standing and juridical defense from rulers and governors. This is because we not only seek advocacy of political orders in order to rally allies with whom me seek advantage from both rule and government – but would be constrained ourselves by rule of law if our preferred leaders obtained it. All political advocacy in favor of one form of rule, or one form of government, and another, is an attempt to circumvent the cost of exchange. But if I am correct – and the science increasingly suggests so – then we libertarians are partly morally blind, progressives are almost entirely morally blind (libertarians and progressives) and conservatives not only see clearly but are over-sensitive. And all attempts at political power are merely attempts to circumvent voluntary exchanges of cooperation that occur in the family, tribe and market. Rule that prohibits parasitism in the tribe, market and government forces us to conduct voluntary exchanges (compromises) none of which are optimum for the long term capital accumulators (conservatives), medium time frame producers (libertarians) and short time frame consumers(progressives). Just as we use voluntary exchange in the market to organize production, distribution, trade, and consumption, we organize the production of commons via government. But if government is not a vehicle for the facilitation of trade between the long(conservative), medium(libertarian), and short(progressive) factions, it is no different from not possessing a free market for the production goods and services, an not possessing money to signal demand. When free market advocates call for infinitely open markets this imposes costs on the other factions. When socialists call for redistribution this imposes costs on the other factions. When Conservatives call for the payment of normative costs, this imposes a cost on the other factions. But if we instead of imposing costs upon one another, conduct trades, then those costs are the expenses that we pay to cooperate on means despite our cognitively biased different ends. Cooperation lets a species specialize. Cooperation by voluntary exchange lets us specialized without dying off and producing a new generation. Cooperation by voluntary exchange collects information from the specialists in intertemporal reproduction: short consumption progressives, medium productive libertarians, and long term, conservative capital accumulators. By satisfying the wants of all through voluntary exchange, together we ‘calculate’ the optimum possible reproduction for all, the same way that the market calculates the optimum possible production for all. If I have not converted you to market production of commons (a market government) consisting of at least four if not five houses, each of which splits by gender, then hopefully at least I will help you understand mankind’s long struggle to increase the scope and rewards of cooperation by the use of market and voluntary exchange to produce the information necessary for us to act in our collective interests. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)
-
Contra NRx’s Techno Commericalism
[W]hile technology (a)decreases the cost of relationship acquisition, (b)decreases the cost of property registries, (c) decreases the cost of and often need for, escrow services (financial transaction costs), (d) reduces the need for regulation, (e) decreases the cost of geographic and temporal constraints, technology does NOT change the fundamental problem of cooperation: the incremental suppression of parasitism and the decidability of conflicts across different or competing regulations, norms, property allocations, and institutional processes. Technology reduces costs. Good law reduces costs. And that is the best that we can do. Everything else is achieved by trial and error. Because we cannot necessarily know what is good. We can only know with confidence that which is bad: parasitism.