Theme: Predation

  • FORMS OF INTERACTION – FROM WAR TO PRODUCTION TO SUICIDE QUESTION: Which of thes

    FORMS OF INTERACTION – FROM WAR TO PRODUCTION TO SUICIDE

    QUESTION: Which of these is moral and ethical or not?

    1) WAR: Both parties prey upon each other in mutual destruction (consumption)

    2) PREDATION: In which on party preys upon the other for the purpose of destruction (consumption)

    3) PARASITISM: In which one party benefits at another’s expense

    4) COMMENSALISM: In which one party benefits and the other is neither harmed nor helped

    5) EXCHANGE: In which costs are reciprocally offset without gain.

    6) MUTUALISM (production) : in which both parties benefit.

    7) COLONIALISM : In which one party pays the cost of training the other to cooperate.

    8) SACRIFICE: In which one party harms itself in order to benefit the other.

    9) SUICIDE: In which one party destroys itself in order to benefit the other.

    And, bonus question: which of these is western culture engaging in?


    Source date (UTC): 2014-05-17 06:35:00 UTC

  • Question: "What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?"

    QUESTION

    “Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

    ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

    10246714_10152433158177264_527829354130622658_n
    10341659_10152433157872264_6629092066022808336_n
    10339771_10152433157142264_4987189427452978583_n
    10320479_10152433156752264_6790035435885808311_n
    10308325_10152433156247264_1969030948940830919_n
    10269468_10152374134427264_3416725570490600838_n
  • Question: “What are your concepts of Aristocratic, Protestant, Parasitism, Free Riding, and Immoral?”

    QUESTION

    “Hi Curt, I’ve been reading your posts & your blog. I find it really interesting since I share a similar opinion about Rothbardian ethics. However, from your articles&posts, it is difficult to understand what is your concept of “Aristocratic”? Why is it “protestant”? I find it rather unnecessary to link the last one to propertarianism. Also, I would like to ask you if you understand parasitism&involuntary transfers&free riding as synonyms. You probably don’t. Then it intrigues me why do you think free riding is immoral?. I don’t believe free riding necessarily involves involuntary transfers. Then, if it doesn’t enter the circle of “will”, why should it be included in “morality”?.” — Alejandro Veintimilla

    ANSWER [A]lejandro, Thanks for the question. Unfortunately, libertarians tend not to be all that well read outside of libertarianism. They aren’t special. Most people aren’t all that well read. I hope what follows helps. 1) ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy / Aristocratic / Aristocratic Egalitarian / Aristocratic Egalitarianism. (See Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization) High trust property rights are obtained reciprocally with others who promise to insure each other’s property rights by committing to defend them by the organized application of violence. This says that property rights are obtained by the act of entering into contract to protect the property rights of other contract members. Aristocratic egalitarianism simply implies that this contract is open to all who will voluntarily agree to it. (a) this reflects the origins of western civilization’s aristocracy of peers. (b) this eliminates the necessity for, an fallacy of natural laws, or intrinsic rights. (c) this illustrates that libertarians who are unwilling to enter into such a contract are attempting to obtain their property rights by appeals arbitrarily moral or supernatural means, rather than as mere rights and obligations of a contract. 2) PROTESTANT The protestant peoples are the only peoples to have adopted high trust ethics (high trust property rights) nearly universally throughout their societies. Neither those ethics, nor aristocracy are dependent upon protestantism. Instead, protestant cultures were simply more outbred, with higher trust, than catholic peoples. (They made use of the absolute nuclear family, not the traditional family). And those cultures that were higher trust and more outbred, adopted protestantism as a means of rebelling against the less outbred, lower trust, (parasitic) south. 3) PARASITISM Parasitism, Discounts, Involuntary Transfer, Free Riding, Jan Lester’s “Imposed Cost”, : I treat these as synonyms, yes. When any two or more organisms cooperate, the only way that cooperation is beneficial for all involved, is if net contribution is required of each member. I say, two benefit and one does not, then cooperation is a cost to the third, not a benefit. Rothbardian ethics, by not prohibiting unethical and immoral actions, implicitly allow immoral and unethical actions, and as such allow for parasitism. In fact, encourage parasitism. Because the incentive for free riding is ever present. Production is much harder than free riding. 4) THE DARK ENLIGHTENMENT Over the past decade we’ve seen the rise of the Dark Enlightenment movement out of the libertarian movement. This movement is a reactionary (conservative) set of ideas to fight the “Cathedral’ (the union of state, bureaucracy, university, and corporate interests). The movement rejects universalism, multi-culturalsm, diversity. equality, feminism, and the state. And argues that the enlightenment project that sought to grant all people the rights of aristocracy, and to create an aristocracy of everybody, has been a failure. Instead, they embrace tribal particularism, homogeneity, and genetic differences, hoppe’s monarchy (as well as other models.). One thing they reject is rothbardian libertarianism. For reasons I think I articulate pretty clearly: it’s impossible, it’s immoral, and it is not sufficiently useful for particularists. Rather than relying upon Kantian rationalism and the Continental form of argument, or jewish Cosmopolitanism and its variation on the continental form of argument, the Dark Enlightenment, in typical anglo tradition, relies upon the recent findings of science. Unfortunately, the Dark Enlightenment merely provides a criticism of the “Cathedral”, and Rothbardian “Ghetto” Libertarianism. Not necessarily any solutions. (They might argue otherwise.) So I have attempted: (a) To restate Hoppes arguments in contemporary scientific terms, rather than the “antique” reliance on cosmopolitanism. (b) To Develop a language for the description of all moral codes (Propertarianism) including those that are necessary for the high trust society. (c) To correctly state the origin of rights as obtained in contract. (d) To provide an institutional solution to the problem of government, by allowing all matters of conflict to be settled by law. 5) GETTING UP TO DATE ————————————- PROPERTARIANISM AND ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/propertarianism-and…/ A COMPARISON OF ARISTOCRATIC VS GHETTO ETHICS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/aristocratic…/ THE CULTURE OF THE NORT SEA PEOPLES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/on-the-north-sea-peoples/ SIGNALING PROPERTIES http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-signaling…/ Cheers Curt PICTURES DO MORE THAN WORDS

    10246714_10152433158177264_527829354130622658_n
    10341659_10152433157872264_6629092066022808336_n
    10339771_10152433157142264_4987189427452978583_n
    10320479_10152433156752264_6790035435885808311_n
    10308325_10152433156247264_1969030948940830919_n
    10269468_10152374134427264_3416725570490600838_n
  • The Culture That Suppresses All Discounts, All Free-Riding, All Involuntary Transfer, All Unethical And Immoral Action

    [W]e 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. On The Uniqueness Of The North Sea Peoples

  • The Culture That Suppresses All Discounts, All Free-Riding, All Involuntary Transfer, All Unethical And Immoral Action

    [W]e 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. On The Uniqueness Of The North Sea Peoples

  • Rothbardian Ethics Are Immoral, Parasitic And The Reason For The Failure Of Libertarianism.

    –“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”– [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism requires that one fight for the liberty of those who would also have it. Proficiency at war, both verbal and physical, is a requirement for membership. Only Aristocratic Egalitarians are free. Everyone else is merely given freedom by permission, or a free-riding parasite on that aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • Rothbardian Ethics Are Immoral, Parasitic And The Reason For The Failure Of Libertarianism.

    –“First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. Then they fight you. Then you win.”– [A]ristocratic Egalitarianism requires that one fight for the liberty of those who would also have it. Proficiency at war, both verbal and physical, is a requirement for membership. Only Aristocratic Egalitarians are free. Everyone else is merely given freedom by permission, or a free-riding parasite on that aristocracy. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • Synonyms Across Disciplines: Free Riding, Involuntary Transfer, Discounting, Theft – But Morally It's All Just 'theft'

    [M]urder, violence, destruction, theft by physical appropriation, theft by fraud, theft by fraud using omission, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest – all deprive others of that which they have acted to obtain an interest in, against their will. ie: theft – the taking of that which is not obtained by voluntary exchange or first-use. Humans reject, universally, and punish, universally, “theft”. But when we talk about ‘theft’, each discipline uses slightly different language

      [I] do not need to get into a semantic debate on normative terminology. I need only define my terms. “Free riding” is the broadest category I can use in the context of cooperation. While “involuntary transfer” is the broadest categorical term I can use in the context of moral philosophy. And “theft” is the broadest categorical term that I can use in the context of dispute resolution (law). However, whether talking about cooperation (free riding), morality (involuntary transfer), or dispute resolution (theft), the human action they all refer to, is that act which transfers that which one has acted to accumulate or acquire without his informed consent. Cheers

    • Synonyms Across Disciplines: Free Riding, Involuntary Transfer, Discounting, Theft – But Morally It’s All Just ‘theft’

      [M]urder, violence, destruction, theft by physical appropriation, theft by fraud, theft by fraud using omission, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest – all deprive others of that which they have acted to obtain an interest in, against their will. ie: theft – the taking of that which is not obtained by voluntary exchange or first-use. Humans reject, universally, and punish, universally, “theft”. But when we talk about ‘theft’, each discipline uses slightly different language

        [I] do not need to get into a semantic debate on normative terminology. I need only define my terms. “Free riding” is the broadest category I can use in the context of cooperation. While “involuntary transfer” is the broadest categorical term I can use in the context of moral philosophy. And “theft” is the broadest categorical term that I can use in the context of dispute resolution (law). However, whether talking about cooperation (free riding), morality (involuntary transfer), or dispute resolution (theft), the human action they all refer to, is that act which transfers that which one has acted to accumulate or acquire without his informed consent. Cheers

      • Synonyms Across Disciplines: Free Riding, Involuntary Transfer, Discounting, Theft – But Morally It's All Just 'theft'

        [M]urder, violence, destruction, theft by physical appropriation, theft by fraud, theft by fraud using omission, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest – all deprive others of that which they have acted to obtain an interest in, against their will. ie: theft – the taking of that which is not obtained by voluntary exchange or first-use. Humans reject, universally, and punish, universally, “theft”. But when we talk about ‘theft’, each discipline uses slightly different language

          [I] do not need to get into a semantic debate on normative terminology. I need only define my terms. “Free riding” is the broadest category I can use in the context of cooperation. While “involuntary transfer” is the broadest categorical term I can use in the context of moral philosophy. And “theft” is the broadest categorical term that I can use in the context of dispute resolution (law). However, whether talking about cooperation (free riding), morality (involuntary transfer), or dispute resolution (theft), the human action they all refer to, is that act which transfers that which one has acted to accumulate or acquire without his informed consent. Cheers