Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • The first question of ethics is “Why should I not kill you and take your things?

    The first question of ethics is “Why should I not kill you and take your things?”

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-01 12:01:00 UTC

  • The first question of ethics is “Why should I not kill you and take your things?

    The first question of ethics is “Why should I not kill you and take your things?”

  • Psychology Is A Pseudoscience – A Philosophy Gradually Overcoming 150 Years Of Outright Nonsense. Here Is The Alter

    1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism. 2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits. 3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality. 4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology. 5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology. 6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics. In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation. I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation. Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite. The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities. But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms. The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means. And only inferior people would choose an alternative. Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity. And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.

  • PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE – A PHILOSOPHY GRADUALLY OVERCOMING 150 YEARS OF O

    PSYCHOLOGY IS A PSEUDOSCIENCE – A PHILOSOPHY GRADUALLY OVERCOMING 150 YEARS OF OUTRIGHT NONSENSE.

    HERE IS THE ALTERNATIVE.

    1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism.

    2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits.

    3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality.

    4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology.

    5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology.

    6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics.

    In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation.

    I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation.

    Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite.

    The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities.

    But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms.

    The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means.

    And only inferior people would choose an alternative.

    Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity.

    And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-28 13:09:00 UTC

  • Psychology Is A Pseudoscience – A Philosophy Gradually Overcoming 150 Years Of Outright Nonsense. Here Is The Alter

    1 – if you get mises and hoppe’s property rights analysis, and just add property-in -toto, so that you end up with acquisitionism. 2 – If you then take the cognitive biases you see how evolution fucked with us to keep us taking risks (acting, exploring) within our energy limits. 3 – Then take five factors, then ten dimensions of personality. 4 – Then take those factors and map them to phases of the prey drive on y axis, and male vs female reproductive strategies on the x-axis, and you have all of psychology. 5 – Then take haidt’s moral categories and express them as property rights, and you have all of political psychology and sociology. 6 – Then all you have is reciprocity > individual violations of reciprocity > gender violations of reciprocity > class and group violations of reciprocity > and group evolutionary violations of reciprocity, and you have all of politics. In other words, we can cooperate honestly on one hand, and we can game each other on the other, and we can game each other at every scale from the individual to the nation. I mean, really, it’s all that simple. That’s the boring science of it. We are very obvious gene machines that create fictions in order to cooperate while maintaining the optimum level of cheating possible within the available limits of cooperation. Psychology either takes that scientific position, or it takes a fictionalist position. Most of us want a fictionalist position when we are young so that we can ‘feel’. Some of us want a fictionalist position when we are developing, so that we can strategize for an advantage. Some of us who mature want a justification of our strategy to provide positive feedback for our immoral successes, or our personal weakness and failings. Some people don’t fictionalize at all, they just compete without doing harm. They are the defacto natural elite. The Truth is very simple. But the number of fictions we have invented to complicate what is very obviously the rational actions of a selfish animal in competition with other superpredators – and thereby obscure our hierarchy of immoralities. But such fictions allow us to form coalitions of people with the same immoralities (systems of parasitism). Just as much as the truth would allow us to form coalitions of people with no immoralities and no parasitisms. The difference is very simple: only a superior people would choose Sovereignty, reciprocity, truth(empiricism, operationalism), and markets in everything – because only a superior people can compete by sovereign, reciprocal, truthful, trusting, and market-competitive means. And only inferior people would choose an alternative. Hence the few use truth and markets and the many use fictionalisms. Because there are so few who are superior to the mass of humanity. And very few men are of sufficient agency to acknowledge these truths.

  • Hoppe’s Work

    (from elsewhere) TOCAS is Hoppe’s best work. It is before he is overly affected by Rothbard. Like all Hoppe’s work, he is at his best in the study, description, and articulation of general rules of human incentives, and reduction of all of ethics to statements of property – even though he fails to make the connection between via positiva property, with via-negativa Reciprocity. He solves social science making the same mistake as Kant, Hegel, Marx, and Mises – verbalisms, rather than empiricisms. Unfortunately as a German (Rationalist), educated by Marxists (Justificationists), and overly influenced by Rothbard (Fictionalist), he favors his rational insights (which are false) instead of following his original, purely operational, insights into the application of economics to politics. Mises discovered operationalism in the only field in which it mattered (math does not need it, and physics has already adopted it), and turned his (and his generation’s) intuition into a rationalist pseudoscience. Rothbard again ran with the justificationary rationalism of Jewish Law, and finally, hoppe improved upon rothbard with more rigorousness rather than appeals to optimistic moral intuition. We stand on the shoulders of Giants. But these giants are often more flawed than perfect.

  • What Was The Main Cause Of America’s Rise Of Capitalism Steel, Oil Or Railways?

    Neither. It was selling off a conquered continent to new settlers. Then selling those settlers goods and services. Then financing that territory, homes, goods, services, and educations.

    Even today the primary driver of the american economy and the reason for american consumption is housing.

    https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-main-cause-of-America-s-rise-of-capitalism-steel-oil-or-railways

  • What Was The Main Cause Of America’s Rise Of Capitalism Steel, Oil Or Railways?

    Neither. It was selling off a conquered continent to new settlers. Then selling those settlers goods and services. Then financing that territory, homes, goods, services, and educations.

    Even today the primary driver of the american economy and the reason for american consumption is housing.

    https://www.quora.com/What-was-the-main-cause-of-America-s-rise-of-capitalism-steel-oil-or-railways

  • yes – that’s the origin of property (really). The intergenerational transfer of

    yes – that’s the origin of property (really). The intergenerational transfer of assets.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-20 20:15:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/966043541586825221

    Reply addressees: @johann_theron

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/965991149788909568

    IN REPLY TO:

    @johann_theron

    @curtdoolittle Wasn’t meant as a criticism. But your graph initiated a further question in my mind. A. Family obtains property rights for their home. But the home only lasts 20 years. Why should property rights be permanent? So only one child can inherit it without working for it?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/965991149788909568

  • The problem with “Human Rights” is in the determination of who in fact is ‘human

    The problem with “Human Rights” is in the determination of who in fact is ‘human’, and who remains some degree of domesticated animal.

    (humor)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-02-19 17:57:00 UTC