Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO PROPERTARIANISM (final word on the matter so to speak) —“Dear Doolittle: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand and objectivism. What are the similarities between objectivism and propertarianism? What are the differences?Forgive me if you’ve already covered this, I’ve only been following for a few months.”— The simple version is that rand provides a literary attack on norms that is framed in economic terms, where nietzche provides a literary attack on norms that is framed by purely aestehtic terms. In my view she is attempting to restate nietzsche for middle class consumption. So if you asked me if you wanted to learn some subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. Rand is a LITERARY author trying desperately to produce an analytic philosophy. Where she succeeds is in providing an easier explanation of Nietzche accessible to the contemporary audience through a novelization. Where she fails is in an attempt to join the ranks of analytic philosophers. she succeeds in creating a literary moral philosophy for the moral argument of middle class values, but she fails in producing an ethical, moral, political, and group evolutionary science. Rand is a doorway for the young mind, and as such we should respect her as we respect other literary philosophers like plato. But there is no substitute for aristotelianism: science. its just a lot harder to learn science. I believe I have unified biology (science), philosophy: ethics and morality(cooperation), economics(production), politics( production of commons), group competitive strategy (evolution), and Law (decidability) and as such, for all intents and purposes, Propertarianism is my term for “Natural Law”, which is a science of cooperation expressed in the science of cooperation: “Law”. So in the 19th and early 20th century we saw the battle between egalitarian eugenic truth and transcendence: poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, hayek, and nietzsche, and authoritarian dysgenic lies: cantor, boaz, marx, freud, frankfurt school (left), mises/rothbard/rand (middle), and Trotsky/Leo Strauss (right) school of accommodation of the underclasses and profiting from them. And we saw the total failure in the 20th century of the anglo model of classical liberalism and the failure of its arguments – accommodation. And we saw the unfortunate failure in the 20th century of the german attempt at the second scientific revolution, and the restoration of europe, by the maturation of the german (hanseatic) civilization. What has happened is that since neither could win the arguments, the left has tried to immigrate lower class dependents in, faster than the conservatives can integrate them. And it has worked to a large degree only because the school, state, academy complex has conspired against western civilization: egalitarian, eugenic, and truthful civilization of transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
Theme: Property
-
The Final Word on Rand and Objectivism
Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO PROPERTARIANISM (final word on the matter so to speak) —“Dear Doolittle: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand and objectivism. What are the similarities between objectivism and propertarianism? What are the differences?Forgive me if you’ve already covered this, I’ve only been following for a few months.”— The simple version is that rand provides a literary attack on norms that is framed in economic terms, where nietzche provides a literary attack on norms that is framed by purely aestehtic terms. In my view she is attempting to restate nietzsche for middle class consumption. So if you asked me if you wanted to learn some subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means. Rand is a LITERARY author trying desperately to produce an analytic philosophy. Where she succeeds is in providing an easier explanation of Nietzche accessible to the contemporary audience through a novelization. Where she fails is in an attempt to join the ranks of analytic philosophers. she succeeds in creating a literary moral philosophy for the moral argument of middle class values, but she fails in producing an ethical, moral, political, and group evolutionary science. Rand is a doorway for the young mind, and as such we should respect her as we respect other literary philosophers like plato. But there is no substitute for aristotelianism: science. its just a lot harder to learn science. I believe I have unified biology (science), philosophy: ethics and morality(cooperation), economics(production), politics( production of commons), group competitive strategy (evolution), and Law (decidability) and as such, for all intents and purposes, Propertarianism is my term for “Natural Law”, which is a science of cooperation expressed in the science of cooperation: “Law”. So in the 19th and early 20th century we saw the battle between egalitarian eugenic truth and transcendence: poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, hayek, and nietzsche, and authoritarian dysgenic lies: cantor, boaz, marx, freud, frankfurt school (left), mises/rothbard/rand (middle), and Trotsky/Leo Strauss (right) school of accommodation of the underclasses and profiting from them. And we saw the total failure in the 20th century of the anglo model of classical liberalism and the failure of its arguments – accommodation. And we saw the unfortunate failure in the 20th century of the german attempt at the second scientific revolution, and the restoration of europe, by the maturation of the german (hanseatic) civilization. What has happened is that since neither could win the arguments, the left has tried to immigrate lower class dependents in, faster than the conservatives can integrate them. And it has worked to a large degree only because the school, state, academy complex has conspired against western civilization: egalitarian, eugenic, and truthful civilization of transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Copy and Paste Argument Against Libertarianism
THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM — Libertarianism has good ideas — And arsenic has good uses as well. Libertarianism has good ideas in so far as i) it attempts (correctly) to produce an amoral analytic political philosophy by reducing all rights to property rights in the anglo contractualist (anglo-saxon) tradition. And ii) because of this it is the only ethical, moral, and political framework capable of competing with cosmopolitan marxism, socialism, pseudo-scientific socialism, postwar conservatism, neo-conservatism. But unfortunately, because the anglo conservatives cannot in a democracy state that conservatism, as demonstrated by Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche, is and always was, a eugenic group evolutionary strategy, conservatives were barred from ratio-scientific argument. At least, until the end of the 20th century when we had accumulated enough empirical evidence about the nature of man to overcome the religious, pseudoscientific, and wishful thinking visions of man. But while libertarianism contains a at least one good idea, it also has catastrophically bad ideas in (a) the assumptions of the nature of man as balanced between immoral and moral, rather than completely rational, and the higher cost of moral productivity than immoral parasitism to the strongest of individuals, (b) the assumption of the distribution of talents and interests in any population as indifferent rather than as preferring very different orders that better suit their interests, (c) the abandonment of commons because of the inability to solve the problem of choosing, constructing and maintaining commons, (d) the unsurvivability of any such polity without the competitive advantage of commons, (e) the definition of property such that unethical and immoral action is licensed, or a preference not a necessity for the formation of a demographically, economically, and militarily competitive polity, (f) the demand for an authoritarian rule to suppress retaliation against unethical, and immoral actions. (g) and where demand for rule cannot be created, the only individuals who will select for such (remote) polities will be those that consume parasitically upon the products of societies that produce commons – and if sufficiently ‘successful’ in accumulating those parasites, will be exterminated by those polities; (h) especially given that the first, and most necessary common we must produce in any polity is the formal institutions that insure our property rights, from those with greater individual, group, collective, and political resources; As such, ‘liberarianism’ is a recipe for recreating the THE LEVANT, not the western high trust, highly productive, highly innovative, order of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy. Libertarianism is a semitic, tribal, low trust, and ghetto, but not western, social order. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
-
The Copy and Paste Argument Against Libertarianism
THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM — Libertarianism has good ideas — And arsenic has good uses as well. Libertarianism has good ideas in so far as i) it attempts (correctly) to produce an amoral analytic political philosophy by reducing all rights to property rights in the anglo contractualist (anglo-saxon) tradition. And ii) because of this it is the only ethical, moral, and political framework capable of competing with cosmopolitan marxism, socialism, pseudo-scientific socialism, postwar conservatism, neo-conservatism. But unfortunately, because the anglo conservatives cannot in a democracy state that conservatism, as demonstrated by Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche, is and always was, a eugenic group evolutionary strategy, conservatives were barred from ratio-scientific argument. At least, until the end of the 20th century when we had accumulated enough empirical evidence about the nature of man to overcome the religious, pseudoscientific, and wishful thinking visions of man. But while libertarianism contains a at least one good idea, it also has catastrophically bad ideas in (a) the assumptions of the nature of man as balanced between immoral and moral, rather than completely rational, and the higher cost of moral productivity than immoral parasitism to the strongest of individuals, (b) the assumption of the distribution of talents and interests in any population as indifferent rather than as preferring very different orders that better suit their interests, (c) the abandonment of commons because of the inability to solve the problem of choosing, constructing and maintaining commons, (d) the unsurvivability of any such polity without the competitive advantage of commons, (e) the definition of property such that unethical and immoral action is licensed, or a preference not a necessity for the formation of a demographically, economically, and militarily competitive polity, (f) the demand for an authoritarian rule to suppress retaliation against unethical, and immoral actions. (g) and where demand for rule cannot be created, the only individuals who will select for such (remote) polities will be those that consume parasitically upon the products of societies that produce commons – and if sufficiently ‘successful’ in accumulating those parasites, will be exterminated by those polities; (h) especially given that the first, and most necessary common we must produce in any polity is the formal institutions that insure our property rights, from those with greater individual, group, collective, and political resources; As such, ‘liberarianism’ is a recipe for recreating the THE LEVANT, not the western high trust, highly productive, highly innovative, order of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy. Libertarianism is a semitic, tribal, low trust, and ghetto, but not western, social order. THUS ENDETH THE LESSON. Curt Doolittle The Cult of Non Submission The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Natural Law of Sovereign Men The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
-
JAMES ON CONFLATION > DECEPTION > UNEARNED DISCOUNT (THEFT) (behold the parsimon
JAMES ON CONFLATION > DECEPTION > UNEARNED DISCOUNT (THEFT)
(behold the parsimony of genius)
By James Augustus
Propertarian Heuristic: where one observes conflation, one is likely to observe some degree of deception.
Corollary: where one observes deception, one is likely to observe some dimension of discount-seeking (parasitism).
And that can apply to:
(a) conflation as substitution for understanding of existential operations (seeking discounts on intellectual authority), and;
(b) conflation as means of limiting the scope of information considered on matters that require decidability (seeking discounts on exchange/cooperation).
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 16:00:00 UTC
-
Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO
Q&A: WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON RAND AND OBJECTIVISM, AND HOW DOES SHE COMPARE TO PROPERTARIANISM
(final word on the matter so to speak)
—“Dear Doolittle: What are your thoughts on Ayn Rand and objectivism. What are the similarities between objectivism and propertarianism? What are the differences?Forgive me if you’ve already covered this, I’ve only been following for a few months.”—
The simple version is that rand provides a literary attack on norms that is framed in economic terms, where nietzche provides a literary attack on norms that is framed by purely aestehtic terms. In my view she is attempting to restate nietzsche for middle class consumption.
So if you asked me if you wanted to learn some subject I would tell you to start with an historical novel, or movie about it to provide cultural context. Then I would suggest an autobiography about it to provide personal context. Then I would tell you to read an introduction to the technical aspects – something short. Then to read a textbook about it. So I would tell you to work from broad brush strokes to very precise formula by incremental means.
Rand is a LITERARY author trying desperately to produce an analytic philosophy. Where she succeeds is in providing an easier explanation of Nietzche accessible to the contemporary audience through a novelization. Where she fails is in an attempt to join the ranks of analytic philosophers. she succeeds in creating a literary moral philosophy for the moral argument of middle class values, but she fails in producing an ethical, moral, political, and group evolutionary science.
Rand is a doorway for the young mind, and as such we should respect her as we respect other literary philosophers like plato. But there is no substitute for aristotelianism: science. its just a lot harder to learn science.
I believe I have unified biology (science), philosophy: ethics and morality(cooperation), economics(production), politics( production of commons), group competitive strategy (evolution), and Law (decidability) and as such, for all intents and purposes, Propertarianism is my term for “Natural Law”, which is a science of cooperation expressed in the science of cooperation: “Law”.
So in the 19th and early 20th century we saw the battle between egalitarian eugenic truth and transcendence: poincare, maxwell, darwin, menger, spencer, hayek, and nietzsche, and authoritarian dysgenic lies: cantor, boaz, marx, freud, frankfurt school (left), mises/rothbard/rand (middle), and Trotsky/Leo Strauss (right) school of accommodation of the underclasses and profiting from them. And we saw the total failure in the 20th century of the anglo model of classical liberalism and the failure of its arguments – accommodation. And we saw the unfortunate failure in the 20th century of the german attempt at the second scientific revolution, and the restoration of europe, by the maturation of the german (hanseatic) civilization.
What has happened is that since neither could win the arguments, the left has tried to immigrate lower class dependents in, faster than the conservatives can integrate them. And it has worked to a large degree only because the school, state, academy complex has conspired against western civilization: egalitarian, eugenic, and truthful civilization of transcendence.
Curt Doolittle
The Cult of Non Submission
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 12:49:00 UTC
-
THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM — Libertarianism has good i
THE COPY AND PASTE ARGUMENT AGAINST LIBERTARIANISM
— Libertarianism has good ideas —
And arsenic has good uses as well.
Libertarianism has good ideas in so far as i) it attempts (correctly) to produce an amoral analytic political philosophy by reducing all rights to property rights in the anglo contractualist (anglo-saxon) tradition. And ii) because of this it is the only ethical, moral, and political framework capable of competing with cosmopolitan marxism, socialism, pseudo-scientific socialism, postwar conservatism, neo-conservatism. But unfortunately, because the anglo conservatives cannot in a democracy state that conservatism, as demonstrated by Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzche, is and always was, a eugenic group evolutionary strategy, conservatives were barred from ratio-scientific argument. At least, until the end of the 20th century when we had accumulated enough empirical evidence about the nature of man to overcome the religious, pseudoscientific, and wishful thinking visions of man.
But while libertarianism contains a at least one good idea, it also has catastrophically bad ideas in (a) the assumptions of the nature of man as balanced between immoral and moral, rather than completely rational, and the higher cost of moral productivity than immoral parasitism to the strongest of individuals, (b) the assumption of the distribution of talents and interests in any population as indifferent rather than as preferring very different orders that better suit their interests, (c) the abandonment of commons because of the inability to solve the problem of choosing, constructing and maintaining commons, (d) the unsurvivability of any such polity without the competitive advantage of commons, (e) the definition of property such that unethical and immoral action is licensed, or a preference not a necessity for the formation of a demographically, economically, and militarily competitive polity, (f) the demand for an authoritarian rule to suppress retaliation against unethical, and immoral actions. (g) and where demand for rule cannot be created, the only individuals who will select for such (remote) polities will be those that consume parasitically upon the products of societies that produce commons – and if sufficiently ‘successful’ in accumulating those parasites, will be exterminated by those polities; (h) especially given that the first, and most necessary common we must produce in any polity is the formal institutions that insure our property rights, from those with greater individual, group, collective, and political resources;
As such, ‘liberarianism’ is a recipe for recreating the THE LEVANT, not the western high trust, highly productive, highly innovative, order of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and subsidy.
Libertarianism is a semitic, tribal, low trust, and ghetto, but not western social order.
THUS ENDETH THE LESSON.
Curt Doolittle
The Cult of Non Submission
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-20 10:31:00 UTC
-
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY (via request) SIMPLE VERSION COMMON LANGUAGE FORMAL LANGUA
https://propertarianism.com/2016/08/16/qa-curt-whats-your-position-on-intellectual-property/PROPERTARIANISM: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
(via request)
SIMPLE VERSION
https://propertarianism.com/2014/12/17/intellectual-property-ip-in-propertarianism/
COMMON LANGUAGE
https://propertarianism.com/2016/08/16/qa-curt-whats-your-position-on-intellectual-property/
FORMAL LANGUAGE
https://propertarianism.com/2015/06/13/rights-of-limited-market-monopoly-intellectual-property/
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 17:04:00 UTC
-
ON THE ‘BOOK’ OR BOOKS OF NATURAL LAW (PROPERTARIANISM) Anne (All), You know, I
ON THE ‘BOOK’ OR BOOKS OF NATURAL LAW (PROPERTARIANISM)
Anne (All),
You know, I can actually write a short book, “The Law of Nature”, with help from a few others in this group of ours. Although I still need a little help from the “Occultists” etc to color it a bit.
Even a few months ago I thought I couldn’t do it yet. But I’ve realized over the past few weeks that I can. I can make a very short, very small book. In fact, I am getting close to thinking that I can write something as small as a pamphlet or paper. That’s the value of taking so long. I get better at ‘simplificating and adding brevity’.
But you know, I’ve put more than a million dollars of my own money, and not insignificant amounts of my friends money, in to our product and I need to get it to commercial-quality done.
That is my moral imperative.
And honestly, evidence is that the longer I take, the more demand goes up, the better I get at saying it in fewer words.
Our (my advisors and I) original plan still holds:
1 – put out enough of a skeleton on the web site that I can attract early adopters and good criticism from ‘near neighbors’ in the community.
2 – put out a booklet or pamphlet, or ‘paper’ that contains the full argument but without all the narrative and all the historical content and examples.
3 – put out ‘the bible of western civilization’ which will forever serve as the legal, moral, and religious basis of western peoples – and all peoples who wish to transcend.
If it was easy someone else would have figured it out. But you know, christianity put an evil dent in our people. The defeat of roman civilization put an evil dent in our people. The muslim conquest put an evil dent in humanity. and unfortunately, and quite counter-intuitively, Mathematical reasoning put an evil dent in the greek philosophers.
The basis of western civlization was always there: the cult of sovereignty: the initiatic brotherhood of warriors.
“I shall speak the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth even if it brings me death. I will take nothing not paid for. And I will cause no other to bear cost by my words or deeds. And if I break this oath I ask you my brothers to kill me for it.”
If you practice this oath of initiation on a civilizational scale (and regardless of gender), with near-kin, then you will get western civlization because one cannot both keep that oath and do anything other than construct western civlization: sovereignty, truth, and markets in everything.
All I am doing is making even an argument against this oath prosecutable to the point of death.
Curt Doolittle
The Cult of Non Submission
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Natural Law of Sovereign Men
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-19 14:13:00 UTC
-
GOOD EXAMPLE OF LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT —–“Liberty (freedom from control, influe
GOOD EXAMPLE OF LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT
—–“Liberty (freedom from control, influence, obligation) is the natural state of man when no external entity makes an ownership claim against him. So how can liberty also be a “common property”.”—- Luke Weinhagen
Is it parasitism to prevent you from making an ownership claim on me and my productivity? It seems like that external ownership claim is the parasitism, not my prevention or opposition of that claim.
It seems more accurate that we trade some liberty (allow external influence over us) for commons, not derive liberty from commons.
Thats not logical luke. It’s common libertarian verbalism. One can exist alone on a desert island, if and only if the cost of crossing the ocean to reach that island is greater than the value of inhabiting it. In other words, defense is provided by the sea. The sea is analogous to ‘some defense group’. So you do not possess independence from the attempts to prey upon you without that sea. Just as you do not possess independence from individuals, groups of individuals, organized groups of individuals, from depriving you of independence, life, possessions, investments, unless you ally with other individuals, groups, or organized groups suffiicent to resist the parasitism and predation of the largest group that can afford to do so.
one has independence alone, but not sovereinty, liberty, freedom, insurance, of subsidy of others.
Yet the common libertine argument is that he should obtain the benefits of the organization of individuals at sufficient scale both to deny parasitism and predation by other groups, AND to concentrate population in sufficient numbers that opportunity costs are increasingly minimized, AND to form the COMMONS that constitutes whatever distribution of property rights allows this population to exist.
There is no free lunch. Libertarianism is an obscurantist language for the purpose of attempting to justify parasitism: free lunch upon the production of others who pay high costs of defense, institutional costs, normative costs, and yes … investments in other commons.
Your choice in the market for polities (markets) is limited to your ability and willingness to pay for entry into those polities (markets). You can obviously choose whatever market you prefer to pay for. There are still wildernesses that you can choose if you choose not to pay for any.
Within that market we may say that there are moral (good), amoral (neutral), and immoral(bad) commons produced. And that we lack sufficient property rights (economic democracy) and we lack sufficient policing (demand for truthfulness), and we lack sufficient juridical defense (rights to sue a commons as we do a shareholder private commons) in the market for commons (houses of government).
But the fact that we do not possess sufficient property rights, sufficient policing, sufficient juridical defense, and there fore sufficient influence in the market for commons, does not mean that such a market for commons is impossible or immoral. And demanding you can free-ride on the expense of others is no respecting their property and therefore their sovereignty. And advocating the (idiocy) of anarchism (the reproductive strategy of parasitic migratory people without territory and institutions of their own) merely forces us to choose between either your inability to solve that problem and intellectual error for having failed to, or your intention to live parasitically off the market by gaining its benefits but not paying its costs.
Property rights themselves, sovereigthy in fact, liberty by permission to exchange, freedom by need to participate in organized exchange, insurance by investment, and subsidy out of insurance, are all commons. Without other people none of those conditions can exist. You just exist. You are independent. You are alone. But you possess nothing.
But sovereignty, liberty, freedom, insurance, and subsidy, and entrance into, and participation in the market we call a polity, are all DEMANDS WE PLACE UPON OTHERS for which we must pay them something in exchange. And it is only through cooperation we in fact possess any ‘political’ ethical, moral, condition.
Thus Endeth The Lesson
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-15 13:59:00 UTC