Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • THE MEANING OF “SACRED” Recent political events have brought to the fore, discou

    THE MEANING OF “SACRED” Recent political events have brought to the fore, discourse on the sacred. But what does the word ‘sacred’ mean? It means a total prohibition on privatization of the commons, or socialization of losses into the commons, in display, word, and deed. In other words, you have zero rights to those commons, zero rights in those commons, and you benefit from those commons precisely because you have no rights to them or in them – as does no one else. THE CHURCH Christianity teaches us one unique thing and teaches us one general thing. For christianity, it saturates us in narratives and rituals that ask us to extend kinship love to non kin – on an individual basis (not a political or military). It asks us to eliminate hatred from the human heart. This just happens to be the optimum cooperative strategy: exhausting investment in cooperation before engaging in retaliation, and when engaging in retaliation doing so out of necessity, and without emotion. The church, temple, or ritual experience teaches us sacredness: that there are conditions under which we have no rights of expression: in display, word, or deed. It teaches us Agency over ourselves. Those capable of agency can be taught. Those who lack agency over themselves demonstrate that they are a danger to the rest. And as most of us recall, as children, adhering to ritual in church for a single hour once a week is an exercise in self discipline that even the most well intentioned may struggle with. THE POLITY We have seen the total destruction of the sacred in pursuit avoiding the effort of developing agency over the self – such that we learn to fast, learn to constrain our actions, our minds, our words, and our displays. And this is because like the parable of the boiling frog, we cannot sense the intertemporal in the moment or even in our lives. Even if we can sense the consequences of our failure to pay the high cost (tax) of developing agency, and the sacred as one more kind of fitness. Physical Fitness (the body) Mental Fitness (mindfulness) Emotional Fitness (Sacredness) Social Fitness (Manners, ethics, morals, traditions, Rituals) Economic Fitness (the skills of measurement) Political Fitness (the natural law)

  • THE MEANING OF “SACRED” Recent political events have brought to the fore, discou

    THE MEANING OF “SACRED”

    Recent political events have brought to the fore, discourse on the sacred. But what does the word ‘sacred’ mean?

    It means a total prohibition on privatization of the commons, or socialization of losses into the commons, in display, word, and deed.

    In other words, you have zero rights to those commons, zero rights in those commons, and you benefit from those commons precisely because you have no rights to them or in them – as does no one else.

    THE CHURCH

    Christianity teaches us one unique thing and teaches us one general thing.

    For christianity, it saturates us in narratives and rituals that ask us to extend kinship love to non kin – on an individual basis (not a political or military). It asks us to eliminate hatred from the human heart. This just happens to be the optimum cooperative strategy: exhausting investment in cooperation before engaging in retaliation, and when engaging in retaliation doing so out of necessity, and without emotion.

    The church, temple, or ritual experience teaches us sacredness: that there are conditions under which we have no rights of expression: in display, word, or deed. It teaches us Agency over ourselves.

    Those capable of agency can be taught. Those who lack agency over themselves demonstrate that they are a danger to the rest. And as most of us recall, as children, adhering to ritual in church for a single hour once a week is an exercise in self discipline that even the most well intentioned may struggle with.

    THE POLITY

    We have seen the total destruction of the sacred in pursuit avoiding the effort of developing agency over the self – such that we learn to fast, learn to constrain our actions, our minds, our words, and our displays.

    And this is because like the parable of the boiling frog, we cannot sense the intertemporal in the moment or even in our lives. Even if we can sense the consequences of our failure to pay the high cost (tax) of developing agency, and the sacred as one more kind of fitness.

    Physical Fitness (the body)

    Mental Fitness (mindfulness)

    Emotional Fitness (Sacredness)

    Social Fitness (Manners, ethics, morals, traditions, Rituals)

    Economic Fitness (the skills of measurement)

    Political Fitness (the natural law)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-20 09:21:00 UTC

  • THE MEANING OF “SACRED” Recent political events have brought to the fore, discou

    THE MEANING OF “SACRED” Recent political events have brought to the fore, discourse on the sacred. But what does the word ‘sacred’ mean? It means a total prohibition on privatization of the commons, or socialization of losses into the commons, in display, word, and deed. In other words, you have zero rights to those commons, zero rights in those commons, and you benefit from those commons precisely because you have no rights to them or in them – as does no one else. THE CHURCH Christianity teaches us one unique thing and teaches us one general thing. For christianity, it saturates us in narratives and rituals that ask us to extend kinship love to non kin – on an individual basis (not a political or military). It asks us to eliminate hatred from the human heart. This just happens to be the optimum cooperative strategy: exhausting investment in cooperation before engaging in retaliation, and when engaging in retaliation doing so out of necessity, and without emotion. The church, temple, or ritual experience teaches us sacredness: that there are conditions under which we have no rights of expression: in display, word, or deed. It teaches us Agency over ourselves. Those capable of agency can be taught. Those who lack agency over themselves demonstrate that they are a danger to the rest. And as most of us recall, as children, adhering to ritual in church for a single hour once a week is an exercise in self discipline that even the most well intentioned may struggle with. THE POLITY We have seen the total destruction of the sacred in pursuit avoiding the effort of developing agency over the self – such that we learn to fast, learn to constrain our actions, our minds, our words, and our displays. And this is because like the parable of the boiling frog, we cannot sense the intertemporal in the moment or even in our lives. Even if we can sense the consequences of our failure to pay the high cost (tax) of developing agency, and the sacred as one more kind of fitness. Physical Fitness (the body) Mental Fitness (mindfulness) Emotional Fitness (Sacredness) Social Fitness (Manners, ethics, morals, traditions, Rituals) Economic Fitness (the skills of measurement) Political Fitness (the natural law)

  • From Curt Doolittle on VK.com Oliver Westcott Asks: —“Is Propertarianism a pre

    From Curt Doolittle on VK.com Oliver Westcott Asks: —“Is Propertarianism a preference for liberty (property and markets in everything) under a system of natural law? (in which case it seems most of what you do is argue for natural law. Not Propertarianism per se.) Or, is Propertarianism the only way to sustain an order of natural law? Or both? Because it struck me Propertarianism is an ideology (nothing wrong with that necessarily, and in my view if it were an ideology, and if ideologies are necessary, then it’s the one I’d choose). Where as natural law is just science.”— The suite of ideas we call Propertarianism out of habit consist of The completion of the scientific method: Action (Metaphysics) Acqusitionism(Psychology), Propertarianism(ethics of cooperation), Compatibilism (sociology), Communication (grammars of negotiation), Testimonialism (Epistemology) Algorithmic Natural Law (Law) Market Commons (Politics) Group Evolutionary Strategy (Cooperativism) War (post cooperative strategy) Aesthetics (beauty) Of these, the principle insight is Testimonialism, which explains and completes the scientific method. I then applied the scientific method to every discipline from metaphysics to war and aesthetics. With this system one can create ANY political order one wishes, doing so truthfully. Any one of them. Anywhere on the spectrum. But truthfully. I (we) then use this understanding to advocate for western high trust, high velocity, transcendent, order, simply because it is the very best of those orders, because it consistently and rapidly defeats the red queen (competition from man and nature) and because only ethnic Europeans appear to be able to produce it. That order of western civilization I refer to as either the ‘Aryan’ or the Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarianism (open to constant expansion of new members). Both terms meaning the same thing: meritocratic rotation in constant pursuit of greater numbers. I know it is almost impossible for followers of propertarianism to distinguish between the simple scientific method that makes our traditions, their intuitions and our instincts into rational and scientific arguments that we can use: Propertarianism – and the group evolutionary strategy that we use – aristocracy: markets of meritocracy in everything: Aryanism, or Aristocratic Egalitarianism. But it is hard and we must distinguish them. An ideology provides an emotional incentive to act in favor of political change under democracy. A philosophy provides a means of system of decidability in a domain of interest. A science provides a means of decidability regardless of interest or preference (Philosophy or Ideology). 1) Propertarianism is a Science. 2) Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a Philosophy. 3) Aryanism is a group evolutionary strategy. And they are all perfectly compatible. Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • Curt Doolittle on VK.com Oliver Westcott Asks: —“Is Propertarianism a preferen

    https://vk.com/curtd?w=wall204954514_26From Curt Doolittle on VK.com http://VK.com

    Oliver Westcott Asks:

    —“Is Propertarianism a preference for liberty (property and markets in everything) under a system of natural law? (in which case it seems most of what you do is argue for natural law. Not Propertarianism per se.)

    Or, is Propertarianism the only way to sustain an order of natural law? Or both?

    Because it struck me Propertarianism is an ideology (nothing wrong with that necessarily, and in my view if it were an ideology, and if ideologies are necessary, then it’s the one I’d choose). Where as natural law is just science.”—

    The suite of ideas we call Propertarianism out of habit consist of

    The completion of the scientific method:

    Action (Metaphysics)

    Acqusitionism(Psychology),

    Propertarianism(ethics of cooperation),

    Compatibilism (sociology),

    Communication (grammars of negotiation),

    Testimonialism (Epistemology)

    Algorithmic Natural Law (Law)

    Market Commons (Politics)

    Group Evolutionary Strategy (Cooperativism)

    War (post cooperative strategy)

    Aesthetics (beauty)

    Of these, the principle insight is Testimonialism, which explains and completes the scientific method. I then applied the scientific method to every discipline from metaphysics to war and aesthetics.

    With this system one can create ANY political order one wishes, doing so truthfully. Any one of them. Anywhere on the spectrum. But truthfully.

    I (we) then use this understanding to advocate for western high trust, high velocity, transcendent, order, simply because it is the very best of those orders, because it consistently and rapidly defeats the red queen (competition from man and nature) and because only ethnic Europeans appear to be able to produce it. That order of western civilization I refer to as either the ‘Aryan’ or the Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarianism (open to constant expansion of new members). Both terms meaning the same thing: meritocratic rotation in constant pursuit of greater numbers.

    I know it is almost impossible for followers of propertarianism to distinguish between the simple scientific method that makes our traditions, their intuitions and our instincts into rational and scientific arguments that we can use: Propertarianism – and the group evolutionary strategy that we use – aristocracy: markets of meritocracy in everything: Aryanism, or Aristocratic Egalitarianism.

    But it is hard and we must distinguish them.

    An ideology provides an emotional incentive to act in favor of political change under democracy.

    A philosophy provides a means of system of decidability in a domain of interest.

    A science provides a means of decidability regardless of interest or preference (Philosophy or Ideology).

    1) Propertarianism is a Science.

    2) Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a Philosophy.

    3) Aryanism is a group evolutionary strategy.

    And they are all perfectly compatible.

    Cheers

    Curt DoolittleUpdated Oct 3, 2017, 12:45 PM

    Source date (UTC): 2017-10-03 12:45:00 UTC

  • From Curt Doolittle on VK.com Oliver Westcott Asks: —“Is Propertarianism a pre

    From Curt Doolittle on VK.com Oliver Westcott Asks: —“Is Propertarianism a preference for liberty (property and markets in everything) under a system of natural law? (in which case it seems most of what you do is argue for natural law. Not Propertarianism per se.) Or, is Propertarianism the only way to sustain an order of natural law? Or both? Because it struck me Propertarianism is an ideology (nothing wrong with that necessarily, and in my view if it were an ideology, and if ideologies are necessary, then it’s the one I’d choose). Where as natural law is just science.”— The suite of ideas we call Propertarianism out of habit consist of The completion of the scientific method: Action (Metaphysics) Acqusitionism(Psychology), Propertarianism(ethics of cooperation), Compatibilism (sociology), Communication (grammars of negotiation), Testimonialism (Epistemology) Algorithmic Natural Law (Law) Market Commons (Politics) Group Evolutionary Strategy (Cooperativism) War (post cooperative strategy) Aesthetics (beauty) Of these, the principle insight is Testimonialism, which explains and completes the scientific method. I then applied the scientific method to every discipline from metaphysics to war and aesthetics. With this system one can create ANY political order one wishes, doing so truthfully. Any one of them. Anywhere on the spectrum. But truthfully. I (we) then use this understanding to advocate for western high trust, high velocity, transcendent, order, simply because it is the very best of those orders, because it consistently and rapidly defeats the red queen (competition from man and nature) and because only ethnic Europeans appear to be able to produce it. That order of western civilization I refer to as either the ‘Aryan’ or the Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarianism (open to constant expansion of new members). Both terms meaning the same thing: meritocratic rotation in constant pursuit of greater numbers. I know it is almost impossible for followers of propertarianism to distinguish between the simple scientific method that makes our traditions, their intuitions and our instincts into rational and scientific arguments that we can use: Propertarianism – and the group evolutionary strategy that we use – aristocracy: markets of meritocracy in everything: Aryanism, or Aristocratic Egalitarianism. But it is hard and we must distinguish them. An ideology provides an emotional incentive to act in favor of political change under democracy. A philosophy provides a means of system of decidability in a domain of interest. A science provides a means of decidability regardless of interest or preference (Philosophy or Ideology). 1) Propertarianism is a Science. 2) Aristocratic Egalitarianism is a Philosophy. 3) Aryanism is a group evolutionary strategy. And they are all perfectly compatible. Cheers Curt Doolittle

  • The Axes of Political Systems

    1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period.  

  • The Axes of Political Systems

    1 – Communism: no state, people engaged in production, democratically decide how to allocate each according to his need. 2 – Socialism: total state ownership, with all income by redistribution. 3 – Fascism: Mixed private public ownership, with strict limits on commerce and behavior, such that maximum income is devoted to the production of commons. 4 – Social Democracy: Mixed public private ownership, but dividends (taxes) from the private sector redistributed for consumption. 5 – Classical Liberalism: Mixed public private Ownership with dividends (taxes) invested in commons, and without redistribution for consumption. 6 – Christian Monarchy: Monarchic ownership of territory, but nobility and property holders permission required for changes in taxation. 7 – Dictatorship: central ownership of everything and taxes collected by practical limitations, but with the intention of keeping the ‘public’ (cattle) productive. TWO AXES: X) Organization of production between involuntary(no property) and voluntary(Property). Y) Direction of proceeds of production and market activity to Government members, or to commons, or to consumers. That’s all the axes we have to work with. That’s all there is to do. Period.  

  • The Full Range of Market Goods?

    • Goods (Physical),
    • Services (Actions),
    • Information (Knowledge)
    • Promises (Requirements),
    • Opportunities (Options)
    Is that all there is really?  Yep.  Next Question. But when we talk about goods and services, that isn’t (a) all that markets produce, and (b) all that we regulate.  The question is why we don’t regulate information the way we regulate goods, services, promises, and opportunities.

  • The Full Range of Market Goods?

    • Goods (Physical),
    • Services (Actions),
    • Information (Knowledge)
    • Promises (Requirements),
    • Opportunities (Options)
    Is that all there is really?  Yep.  Next Question. But when we talk about goods and services, that isn’t (a) all that markets produce, and (b) all that we regulate.  The question is why we don’t regulate information the way we regulate goods, services, promises, and opportunities.