Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • By Brian Barr —“Property rights are for farmers / human rights are for migrant

    By Brian Barr

    —“Property rights are for farmers / human rights are for migrants (hunters) – when it comes to economics these are both reflex propositions in response to defection or tragedy of the commons. The problem we have today is past that of even managing the despoiling of commons: the ecosystem has become a people-system and the main problem with this is that people can occupy every niche but they don’t eat each other. This is unnatural/unsustainable, so that it’s escalating – more effort is called for from everyone in a kind of hysteria, and there is no proper instinctive response in place.”—

    The first sentence is exceptional. I can’t edit the rest down, so I’ll say that absent natural competitors, we have *YET* no institutional means to constrain humans from overconsumption.

    Hence, markets in everything and constraint on reproduction to those who are productive.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-13 08:09:00 UTC

  • Emotions and Their Influence on Biases and Agency

    Apr 09, 2017 5:06pm EMOTIONS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON BIASES AND AGENCY 1 – Emotions reflect changes in the states of property-in-toto. 2 – We use reason (a skill we can improve through practice in deflationary comparisons ) to compare properties, relations, consequences, and valuations. 3 – We use free association to define properties, relations, consequences, and valuations. 4 – Our efforts at free association are impossible not to bias, because our experience accumulates in both interest and intensity in response to our biases. 5 – So it is more correct to say that it is very difficult to learn to think sufficiently deflationarily that our emotions do not influence our reasoning. 6 – to say that many of our emotions – those that I understand – occur in the reptilian and mamalian brains, and that our cognitive biases occur most often in the human parts of the brain and that the more primitive they are the more difficult they are (often) to circumvent, but the easier they are to understand. Many cognitive biases are difficult to be aware of in the first place, and are more subtle. Therefore, in broad terms, the less skill you have, the less will you have, the more solipsistic you are the harder it is to escape the emotions that result from your biases. The more skill you have the more will you have the more autistic you are the easier it is to escape the emotions that result from your biases. Apr 09, 2017 5:37pm AGENCY AND AESTHETICS —“Enlighten the intellect, volition will follow. Aesthetics seem to be the means of aligning one’s passions and emotions to reason.”—Rafael LaVerde Let me expand on that a bit: Remove sources of lack of fitness, lack of character (virtue), lack of resources, sources of normative and institutional resistance, sources of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit – all the impediments to agency – and agency will result. Then selecting a philosophy – a means of decidability – by which one can obtain one’s ends, and an aesthetic that values one’s passions in accordance with that philosophy.

  • Emotions and Their Influence on Biases and Agency

    Apr 09, 2017 5:06pm EMOTIONS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON BIASES AND AGENCY 1 – Emotions reflect changes in the states of property-in-toto. 2 – We use reason (a skill we can improve through practice in deflationary comparisons ) to compare properties, relations, consequences, and valuations. 3 – We use free association to define properties, relations, consequences, and valuations. 4 – Our efforts at free association are impossible not to bias, because our experience accumulates in both interest and intensity in response to our biases. 5 – So it is more correct to say that it is very difficult to learn to think sufficiently deflationarily that our emotions do not influence our reasoning. 6 – to say that many of our emotions – those that I understand – occur in the reptilian and mamalian brains, and that our cognitive biases occur most often in the human parts of the brain and that the more primitive they are the more difficult they are (often) to circumvent, but the easier they are to understand. Many cognitive biases are difficult to be aware of in the first place, and are more subtle. Therefore, in broad terms, the less skill you have, the less will you have, the more solipsistic you are the harder it is to escape the emotions that result from your biases. The more skill you have the more will you have the more autistic you are the easier it is to escape the emotions that result from your biases. Apr 09, 2017 5:37pm AGENCY AND AESTHETICS —“Enlighten the intellect, volition will follow. Aesthetics seem to be the means of aligning one’s passions and emotions to reason.”—Rafael LaVerde Let me expand on that a bit: Remove sources of lack of fitness, lack of character (virtue), lack of resources, sources of normative and institutional resistance, sources of ignorance, error, bias, and deceit – all the impediments to agency – and agency will result. Then selecting a philosophy – a means of decidability – by which one can obtain one’s ends, and an aesthetic that values one’s passions in accordance with that philosophy.

  • ISLAMICIST SOCIAL ORDER VS EUROPEAN SOCIAL ORDER Isis(Islamism) seeks to control

    ISLAMICIST SOCIAL ORDER VS EUROPEAN SOCIAL ORDER

    Isis(Islamism) seeks to controls mind, word, deed, regardless of property allocation, and they favor (try to enforce) a libertarian-theological-judicial social order over centralized state. In other words, they want to preserve ‘headman’ of the tribe status for as many ‘headmen’ as possible, right down to the father of the family.

    Between:

    WEST/NORTH/COLD/SPARSE: The European model (Genetic European), consisting of (Aryan) martial (aristocratic) Sovereignty, and Burgher (middle class) Liberalism(Contractualism), under aristocratic rule of empirical law;

    AND

    SOUTH/MIDDLE/HOT/DENSE The Semitic model (Jewish, Arab, Muslim), (Genetic Afro-Asiatic) consisting of underclass rule of religious law.

    The SIMILARITY is obvious:

    Preserve head-man rule (King/Ruler, Judicial Priesthood (tribal and Clan headman), and Strong Father (family Headman) of extended family.

    The DIFFERNCES are:

    Aristocratic, Evolutionary, Eugenic, Small Numbers, Technological,

    Weaponized Professional Warriors, Trust, Economy, and Technology, high consumption living and reproduction.

    Tactics: concentration of capital and adaptability – solve problems quickly so that opportunities cannot be seized when we are otherwise weak or occupied.)

    -vs-

    Priestly, Devolutionary, Dysgenic, mandated ignorance, subsistence living and reproduction.

    Weaponized raiding, distrust, deception, and reproduction.

    Tactics: concentration of numbers – wear down the opponent over long periods of time)

    Curt DOolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-10 10:42:00 UTC

  • EMOTIONS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON BIASES AND AGENCY 1 – Emotions reflect changes i

    EMOTIONS AND THEIR INFLUENCE ON BIASES AND AGENCY

    1 – Emotions reflect changes in the states of property-in-toto.

    2 – We use reason (a skill we can improve through practice in deflationary comparisons ) to compare properties, relations, consequences, and valuations.

    3 – We use free association to define properties, relations, consequences, and valuations.

    4 – Our efforts at free association are impossible not to bias, because our experience accumulates in both interest and intensity in response to our biases.

    5 – So it is more correct to say that it is very difficult to learn to think sufficiently deflationarily that our emotions do not influence our reasoning.

    6 – to say that many of our emotions – those that I understand – occur in the reptilian and mamalian brains, and that our cognitive biases occur most often in the human parts of the brain and that the more primitive they are the more difficult they are (often) to circumvent, but the easier they are to understand. Many cognitive biases are difficult to be aware of in the first place, and are more subtle.

    Therefore, in broad terms, the less skill you have, the less will you have, the more solipsistic you are the harder it is to escape the emotions that result from your biases.

    The more skill you have the more will you have the more autistic you are the easier it is to escape the emotions that result from your biases.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-09 17:06:00 UTC

  • STUFF I WISH I COULD HAVE SAID: —“Propertarianism is ridiculously easy to summ

    STUFF I WISH I COULD HAVE SAID:

    —“Propertarianism is ridiculously easy to summarize: a system [of terms and grammar] that makes what subtle social investments are linguistically possible to make commensurable, commensurable.

    The further simplification of even that: a system of cooperation through mutual understanding.

    The further simplification of even that: “How we can get what we both want.”

    The further simplification of even that: “How we can help each other.”—Josh Jeppson

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 16:35:00 UTC

  • EXPLAINING PROPERTARIANISM TO MOM My mom. 80th birthday yesterday. Says to me ov

    EXPLAINING PROPERTARIANISM TO MOM

    My mom. 80th birthday yesterday. Says to me over coffee, that her friends can’t understand my work. And that she can’t understand my work. So I go into this little speech to try to make it accessible to those with life experience and last-century educations.

    She says that philosophy classes ruined religion for her. I said, that’s because philosophy, like religion, like science, claims that they’re methodologically ‘right’ – and that they have a monopoly on understanding. Rather than that they are methods of answering questions with different amounts of information, and different degrees of skill, and different degrees of ability.

    She asks me about precision.

    So I explain first how most of us want utility, and we need to find others to test our ideas, and to get cooperation, and to organize by rallying.

    Then how we might use science when we have a lot of information, history when we have a little less, philosophy when we have less information and can only rely on non-contradiction and internal consistency, and religion when we have exhausted our information and can only rely upon the wisdom of the past – ideas that have survived the test of centuries. That’s because with religion we need not require possibility, existence, consistency, or evidence, just wisdom. With philosophy we need not require possibility or existence or evidence, just consistency. With history we need not require causality, just evidence of existential possibility. And with science we require causality.

    So we have developed languages that suit the amount of information that we have. And what we must watch for, and be cautious of, is the misuse of method given the information available – because that is how people lie.

    Now, because people lie, we also have the opposite of those things that help us find ideas, get cooperation, and organize by rallying. Those things are mathematics, science, the limits of human beings, and the law of cooperation.

    Now, everyone wants to think about possibilities, and rally people to their cause, and to obtain information in support of, and confirmation of their cause as ‘not immoral’.

    But very few people want to think about how to test those things against ignorance, error, bias, and lies.

    So to tie this back to what I do, I work in the negative: the law. How to measure (math), tell the truth( science), and to test cooperation (natural law).

    In other words, I write about the laws of measurement, truth, and cooperation, as a defense against ignorance, error, bias, and lies.

    And this is a specialized field. A technical field. And as people with experience in teaching, they know what STEM disciplines are mathematics, science(physics, chemistry, biology, sentience), technology/engineering, economics/finance/accounting/law. These are means of transformation, measurement, and decidability independent of our perceptions. They measure what we cannot feel and experience.

    And there are non-stem disciplines: arts, religion, philosophy, politics, history, literature, education, psychology, sociology, social work, business, and its applications. These are not methods of measurement but of meaning – what we can feel and experience.

    Now I wouldn’t expect ‘friends’ to understand advanced math, science, tech, engineering, econ, finance, or law terminology. I don’t know why people would expect to understand what I write about.

    They won’t.

    But what is fascinating about humans is our continued faith that we have some ability to grasp the moral, right and true, and immoral, wrong and false, at SOME SCALE BEYOND THEIR PERCEPTION any more than we can make any other judgements without tools at any scale beyond that of our senses.

    And that is what STEM (and law) disciplines do: understand, measure, and decide that which is beyond our perceptions and ability to judge by personal experience.

    (Or, to tease my mother – it’s a man thing. Don’t worry about it. lol.)

    -Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 14:03:00 UTC

  • IN DEFENSE OF PROPERTARIANISM – NATURAL LAW *My function is to provide for rule

    IN DEFENSE OF PROPERTARIANISM – NATURAL LAW

    *My function is to provide for rule that will defeat all other forms of rule.*

    1 -Of all the available terms for a philosophy I chose propertarianism because it was the name of the measurement upon which the decidability was provided. Likewise, when I chose from all the available terms “Operationalism” I chose it because it was the name of the measurement upon which decidability was provided. Of all the available terms for truth I chose testimonialism because it names the action. While possession exists as a demonstration of energy expenditure(action), operationalism consists as a demonstration of energy expenditure(action), and testimony exist as a demonstration of energy expenditure (speech-action).

    2 – By referring to another definition (Stanford) rather than the definition I use, just as say Einstein corrected the definition of gravity? Are you saying I can’t correct the Operationalists(Physics), Intuitionists(Mathematics), and Operationists (Psychology), Praxeologists(Economics), Strict Constructionists(Law), and Critical Rationalists(Philosophy), and the Philosophy of Action(Metaphysics), by providing the integration that they all intuit but could not previously provide?

    3 – Are you conflating the sequence of states of possibility: meaning (free association), explanation (justification), survival (criticism), truth (parsimony), with one another and stating that there is no difference in informational content?

    4 – Do you not understand the difference between via-positiva: the addition of information and properties that through suggestion assist in free association and therefore meaning – with via-negativa: the subtraction of information and properties that were created through via-positiva association and suggestion?

    5 – Do you confuse (conflate) necessary causal relations, with causal relations, with potential relations, with meaningful relations, with relations only through relations of meaning

    5 – Do you confuse the scope ‘existence’ in all its impossible, potential and even yet unknown forms, with the scope of existences that are possible, with the scope of ‘existence’ in which men can imagine, men can speak, men can act, and men produce instruments upon that which they can act? And whether they can testify to an existence that they cannot imagine, speak of, and act upon?

    7 – And (While I believe you are intellectually honest and reasonably erudite) how do I know that you are not (like all other people) the victim of your genes, which bias your the weights of your intuition, which bias your accumulation of useful justifications (knowledge), which cumulatively constitute investment, which cumulatively render you insulated from falsification of that genetic bias? The only way to know that is testimony. For there is nothing that cannot be said Testimonially (Truthfully), there are only false claims of preference, persuasion, and authority that cannot be made Testimonially(Truthfully). And I am quite certain it is fear of truth’s exposition of their false claims of prefernece, persuasion, and authority that prevents people from speaking truthfully.

    8 – I did not make a philosophy(decidability within a context) or a literature ( possibilities within that context of decidability) of meaning – meaning from which we obtain joy, inspiration, ideas, and within which we can seize opportunities, make plans, take actions, and organize into groups to divide the labor. I facilitated the means of doing so at increasing scales, by facilitating the means of defense against ignorance, errors, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. Just as others invent means of exploiting ignorance, errors, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit. We can then choose between methods of deceit and methods of truth, and everything in between. But the evidence has shown that truth produces western civilization and anything else does not. The reason being that truth allows adaptation to circumstance at all levels of a hierarchy faster than all other means of adapting to circumstances at all levels of a hierarchy.

    9 – I did not make Propertarianism (Natural Law) to inspire, or to create ideas – that will only occur as an externality. And it is via-externality that one rules by incentive rather than command.

    Law is a parsimonious method of rule that makes use of selfishness, by taking advantage of our willingness to expend energy (bear costs) in altrusitic punishment, to impose the harm of greater sized organizations (the insurer of last resort) upon those of lesser sized organizations (groups, organizations, families, and individuals).

    Property is a parsimonious method of rule that makes use of selfishness, by taking advantage of our willingness to expend energy to fulfill our wants, with whatever limited resource are available to us in the moment.

    By externality, property and law produce wealth that can be extracted and put to use – by any individual, group, minority or majority, for whatever purpose one chooses.

    What one does to invest in one’s in-group, between groups, or against out groups, is a matter of preference.

    10 – In the great question that still lies unanswered: did western man originally demonstrate a more existential bias in his genes? Or was it the natural consequence of those who were superior at war maneuver warfare? Or was the combination of maneuver warfare and the culture that employed it a cause of internal reproductive selection? Or was it an origin myth that caused all of the above? Well while we do not yet know if westerners were more empirically biased – although some researchers suggest so because of language, we are fairly certain at this point that the sequence was one of the utility of technology, the development of heroism, contract, and property to make use of the tactics of maneuver (speed), and the transformation of culture (patriarchy) that resulted from it, and the narratives that resulted from justifying that culture. It may be true (it is true) that one needs intergenerational narratives to persist group evolutionary strategies.

    Now onto the question of the bourgeoise.

    1 – there is a difference between each of: goals, resources, strategy, tactics, training, and inspiration.

    The great generals are always men who apply new technology, invest heavily in logistics, and rely least on the mercurial character of their men.

    I do not see anything terribly difficult in the conduct of war because authoritarian structures are trivially simple to organize, build, and command. But they are dead weight costs and the most expensive direct costs a people can bear. It is the investment in new weapons, arms, and armor that makes a competitive difference in war. The development of an economy that makes that investment possible. And the abilty to afford to maintain a standing army of professional warriors.

    2 – in any conflict one man may be marginally different from another – something that is genetically determined. Rifles eliminated marginal difference in physicality, and reduced it to temperament and fitness – which through training we learned to eliminate. But once we have anything other than one-to-one, the difference is purely that of training and technology. And once we have technological parity we have tactical parity, and the difference is purely that of logistics and strategy. And if we have logistic and strategic parity, then the difference is purely economic and demographic scale. And once we have economic and demographic parity the difference is purely one of demographic distribution. And this is where western man’s aristocratic eugenics have been so influential. Professional warriors (athletes) with from the aristocratic classes, and armies from the meritocratic classes rather than a few aristocratic generals and a large number of eunochs, peasants, and slaves.

    Secondly, most warfare is now conducted economically today rather than militarily for that reason.

    3 – Kings develop assets. Generals develop strategies with them given strategic problems. Majors manage resource for their men. Captains train men to work with the tech and resources that they must use in battle. Lieutenants divide the labor of rule, sergeants direct the men, and soldiers fight with all their might using what that long chain of men has given them to work with – and until the (now ended) Peace of Westphalia they profited by the capture of whatever it is that was left on the field, the farms, the village, and the cities now undefended as their compensation – reserving great prizes for their superiors and taking portable wealth for themselves.

    4 – So, while I do not want to dissuade the soldiers and warriors from whatever religion, myth, literature, and ritual that assists them in forming the bonds necessary to enter into battle in confidence and contract with one another, I do not take seriously criticisms that worries of the soldiery are causal – but consequential. And I do not take criticism of the kings and generals and majors and capitans who ensure that those men, those warriors – even if marginally in different – and only marginally different in numbers, technology, devotion, and skill.

    My job is to provide for rule that will defeat all other forms of rule.

    Once we win we must rule. We stopped ruling. And that was our mistake.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-02 10:57:00 UTC

  • YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH PROPERTARIANISM – HONEST OR NOT? Over the past six months

    YOUR RELATIONSHIP WITH PROPERTARIANISM – HONEST OR NOT?

    Over the past six months to a year, I have seen any number of people try to justify their anchoring philosophy (what they favor) using propertarianism. Or rather, to make propertarianism ‘fit’ their model. ( Why? (a) yesterday on christianity, (b) recently on libertarianism, (c) previously on anarcho capitalism. (d) repeatedly on various forms of literary reference. ) Usually because you want to justify some prior, or satisfy a moral intuition.

    However, it works the other way around. Although the confusion is understandable.

    Your model and values are EXPLAINABLE by propertarianism, just as ALL MODELS are explainable by propertarianism. Thats the point. You can not only explain all thought, all ethics and morals, all norms and sociology, all economics and politics, and all group evolutionary strategies – but you can develop TRUTHFUL constitutions and conduct truthful law to design and operate those social orders – no matter what they are.

    However, because I explain western civilization, advocate a return to natural aristocracy, multi-house production of commons, and strict natural law; and because I want to end the century of pseudoscience and deceit; and because I state it will require violence to restore western civilization using these techniques, this tends to cause people to conflate the SCIENCE of natural law, with the APPLICATION of natural law to the the restoration and reformation of Aristocratic Egalitarianism of our past.

    You can write a natural law (scientific) constitution and develop any familial, normative, economic, and political order that you want to assuming it can survive your assumptions about human nature, and you have the economic wherewithal to implement your institutions.

    You can then justify that order scientifically, rationally, morally, religiously, or spiritually in whatever form of narrative literature that you desire to.

    You can explain, in propertarian terms what your preferred familial, normative, economic and political order claimed in the past, no matter what language it did so in. You can explain many of your favorite parables, lessons, sayings, and givens. You can use it to correct the narrative of the past if you desire to. But…. you cannot escape the fact that propertarianism will expose the errors, deceptions, excuses, and parasitism that you think is ‘good’. And it will force you, if you have any intellectual honesty whatsoever, to accept that your order is not so much ‘good’, as a portfolio of goods, practicalities, inadequacies, and bads.

    Why? Because human existence requires we defeat the natural entropy of the universe through cooperation. But that regardless of the productivity of our cooperation, our reproductive strategies if untamed ( or not weaponized ) result in hitting man’s malthusian limits, and therefore we all prey upon someone or other, or some group or other’s ambitions, even if we do not prey upon their investments other than their reproductive strategy.

    Ergo: you must make a choice at some point to favor dysgenia or eugenia. Because that is the final question of decidability.

    The first question of philosophy is why do i not commit suicide?

    The first question of ethics and politics is why do I not kill you and take your stuff?

    The last question of ethics and politics is eugenia or dysgenia.

    But what I suspect, is that few of us possess the intellectual honesty to (a) admit our strategies are not goods but preferences, (b) decide what we would trade with those having different strategies to obtain our preference – that they would want in exchange. (c) decide the limit of trade as eugenic or dysgenic. (d) and to decide whether if we abandon trade if we are willing and able to resort to flight (not any longer) or to fight.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-01 16:42:00 UTC

  • Western Ying vs Yang = Fiction vs Law

    (profoundly important)FICTION ( possibility – opportunity – productivity ) VS LAW ( decidability – limits – parasitism ) Of the following, which is fiction, which is law? A) Golden Rule : Do unto others as you would have done unto you. B) Silver Rule: Do not unto others as you would not have done unto you. Fiction and Law serve as the western equivalent of Ying and Yang. But our western model innovates, and Ying and Yang stagnates. PETERSON: FICTIONALISM (SELLING), DOOLITTLE: LAW (TELLING)