(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)
Theme: Property
-
Definition: Commons, with Links To the Core
A Short Course in Propertarian Morality propertarianism.com —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE “COMMONS”— COMMONS – Originally, meaning Land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community. More articulately: any form of property to which members of a group share an interests, because of bearing a cost to obtain that interest, but where that interest is obtained by an unspecified membership in the group rather than by explicit possession of title. I use this term to refer to both physical commons, normative commons, institutional commons, and informational commons. The problem we face with commons is that without explicitly issued shares, even un-tradable shares, the ownership of the commons cannot be protected from confiscation by various means including immigration, or political confiscation. See Also DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/07/27/property-rights-and-obligations/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/09/26/a-short-course-in-propertarian-reasoning/ (Honestly people, the accusation that this isn’t accessible is simply untrue. It isn’t in COURSE form, but all the insights are there to consume as fairly simple series (lists). The ‘book’ is up there. The courses are not. )
-
Definition: Commons, with Links To the Core
A Short Course in Propertarian Morality propertarianism.com —“CURT: PLEASE DEFINE “COMMONS”— COMMONS – Originally, meaning Land or resources belonging to or affecting the whole of a community. More articulately: any form of property to which members of a group share an interests, because of bearing a cost to obtain that interest, but where that interest is obtained by an unspecified membership in the group rather than by explicit possession of title. I use this term to refer to both physical commons, normative commons, institutional commons, and informational commons. The problem we face with commons is that without explicitly issued shares, even un-tradable shares, the ownership of the commons cannot be protected from confiscation by various means including immigration, or political confiscation. See Also DEMONSTRATED PROPERTY RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/07/27/property-rights-and-obligations/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/ A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/09/26/a-short-course-in-propertarian-reasoning/ (Honestly people, the accusation that this isn’t accessible is simply untrue. It isn’t in COURSE form, but all the insights are there to consume as fairly simple series (lists). The ‘book’ is up there. The courses are not. )
-
Property without Magical Thinking
“There is no evidence that objects transform into property, that they are somehow magically infused with an attribute known as ownership. Sure, humans transform inputs into outputs all the time, that’s what we do, and generally we treat things that we have transformed as property. But the truth is that transformed objects are still just objects, and that what makes them property is the fact that we agree to behave in a certain way with them, not that there is an inherent ‘property-ness’ to them. This is why a transformed object (house) may be ‘non-property’ (unowned). The act of transformation does not ‘create’ property, it merely signals that we should behave in a certain way towards it. The Labor Theory of Property is clear, that man ‘mixes his labor with nature’, that somehow an object is infused with something. This is magical thinking. Now, I keep running into people who want to pretend that the words ‘mixing labor with nature’ don’t mean what they say, that this is some metaphor that I’m misunderstanding. This is also part of the Propertarian philosophy: we can’t behave rationally if words don’t mean what they mean. We can’t behave rationally if our fundamental building blocks are metaphors. We require concrete, clear, unmistakable language with which to clearly describe the universe. Nothing less will do, if we are to create systems which are empirical rather than merely rational.” William Butchman
-
Property without Magical Thinking
“There is no evidence that objects transform into property, that they are somehow magically infused with an attribute known as ownership. Sure, humans transform inputs into outputs all the time, that’s what we do, and generally we treat things that we have transformed as property. But the truth is that transformed objects are still just objects, and that what makes them property is the fact that we agree to behave in a certain way with them, not that there is an inherent ‘property-ness’ to them. This is why a transformed object (house) may be ‘non-property’ (unowned). The act of transformation does not ‘create’ property, it merely signals that we should behave in a certain way towards it. The Labor Theory of Property is clear, that man ‘mixes his labor with nature’, that somehow an object is infused with something. This is magical thinking. Now, I keep running into people who want to pretend that the words ‘mixing labor with nature’ don’t mean what they say, that this is some metaphor that I’m misunderstanding. This is also part of the Propertarian philosophy: we can’t behave rationally if words don’t mean what they mean. We can’t behave rationally if our fundamental building blocks are metaphors. We require concrete, clear, unmistakable language with which to clearly describe the universe. Nothing less will do, if we are to create systems which are empirical rather than merely rational.” William Butchman
-
Understanding Accounting and Finance? Get Back To Lender Beware.
Mar 01, 2017 2:40pm UNDERSTANDING ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE I’ve been told all my life by some asshole or other that I don’t understand accounting or finance. And I always found that humorous. I took the same classes as everyone else. I just learned something very different from them: most of it is used to lie under pseudoscientific pretense caused entirely by the necessity of limiting profitability in order to reduce taxation, complying with government regulation that obscures real costs of doing business, and complying with bank lending requirements that force you to claim regularity to your income that does not exist, forcing you to keep Operational P&L to run a business, Credit P&L to borrow money, Tax P&L to pay taxes, and Investor P&L to estimate upside. But given the archaic and pseudoscientific nature of accounting and finance and that super-pseudoscience we call mainstream macro economics, all of these things are falsehoods that address special cases. The value of a business is one of three things: the current liquidation value in the event of closure, the value of the business as a going concern to a competitor in the market, and the value to some sucker you can find who will pay you more than either of those numbers. What it is expressly NOT is whatever nonsense your bank, or the government says that it is. Every time I hear the value of a company is expressed in market cap I wanna put irons on someone and stick them in a cell. Suckers exist in america in large numbers principally because we just create so many of them, and we hold so few punishments for them, that the legal and financial industry largely seems to exist in order to allow and profit from, sucker- plays. Now sure, you might be lucky and get a Peter Theil or one of the other Paypal Mafia to invest in your company. These are entrepreneurs who happen to have turned to entrepreneurship at scale. They are not engaged in financialization which provides them with gains whether you win or lose. But that is exactly how most of the capitalist class functions. We need to get back to lender beware.
-
Understanding Accounting and Finance? Get Back To Lender Beware.
Mar 01, 2017 2:40pm UNDERSTANDING ACCOUNTING AND FINANCE I’ve been told all my life by some asshole or other that I don’t understand accounting or finance. And I always found that humorous. I took the same classes as everyone else. I just learned something very different from them: most of it is used to lie under pseudoscientific pretense caused entirely by the necessity of limiting profitability in order to reduce taxation, complying with government regulation that obscures real costs of doing business, and complying with bank lending requirements that force you to claim regularity to your income that does not exist, forcing you to keep Operational P&L to run a business, Credit P&L to borrow money, Tax P&L to pay taxes, and Investor P&L to estimate upside. But given the archaic and pseudoscientific nature of accounting and finance and that super-pseudoscience we call mainstream macro economics, all of these things are falsehoods that address special cases. The value of a business is one of three things: the current liquidation value in the event of closure, the value of the business as a going concern to a competitor in the market, and the value to some sucker you can find who will pay you more than either of those numbers. What it is expressly NOT is whatever nonsense your bank, or the government says that it is. Every time I hear the value of a company is expressed in market cap I wanna put irons on someone and stick them in a cell. Suckers exist in america in large numbers principally because we just create so many of them, and we hold so few punishments for them, that the legal and financial industry largely seems to exist in order to allow and profit from, sucker- plays. Now sure, you might be lucky and get a Peter Theil or one of the other Paypal Mafia to invest in your company. These are entrepreneurs who happen to have turned to entrepreneurship at scale. They are not engaged in financialization which provides them with gains whether you win or lose. But that is exactly how most of the capitalist class functions. We need to get back to lender beware.
-
Natural Law Doesn’t Justify Aristocracy – It Justifies Markets – It Is Just That Natural Law Is Only Possible Under Aristocracy
btw: (important) I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality. The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism. As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale. Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. ) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂
-
Natural Law Doesn’t Justify Aristocracy – It Justifies Markets – It Is Just That Natural Law Is Only Possible Under Aristocracy
btw: (important) I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality. The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism. As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale. Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. ) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂
-
This Is the Final Word on Hoppeian Ancapism
A List of Hans Hermann Hoppe’s Errors https://propertarianinstitute.com/2015/07/31/a-list-of-hans-hermann-hoppes-errors/ As far as I know, this is the final word on Hoppe. And unless or until he answers these objections (he won’t because he cant) we must separate Hoppe’s CONCLUSIONS from his JUSTIFICATIONS. In other words, once we reduce all social science to reciprocity and the voluntary exchange of property, we can deduce all of social science, ethics, politics, group evolutionary strategy, and law, from that reduction. However, his justifications (excuses, arguments) are nonsense up and until that point. I learned the most important ideas from him: the use of property as the unit of measure in the creation of a formal logic of natural law. However, I use science and scientific epistemology where he uses marxist and kantian rationalism: the sources of Marxist communism and socialism and social democracy, rothbardian libertinism, and Straussian neo-conservatism. If hoppe would debate me on this we would be able to illustrate that in three generations, between a jew, a german, and an anglo, we solved the second attempt at discovery of social science. But like most men he cannot (as rothbard did) accept that his most treasured justifications are only one degree removed from kantian rationals, as rothbard is one degree removed from jewish pilpul. The language of truth is science. It just took the three generations of us to complete the second scientific revolution. One that the germans started, but was cut short by the world wars.