Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • JUSTIFY CHANGES IN STATE, NOT EXCUSES (REASON), AND INTENTIONS. It’s not the jus

    JUSTIFY CHANGES IN STATE, NOT EXCUSES (REASON), AND INTENTIONS.

    It’s not the justification of reasoning that we measure but the change in state of property that results from our actions.

    In other words, the excuse we make are irrelevant. Only the change in state of property in toto has any meaning.

    I realize this is hard to grasp for all of us who have studied the history of excuse making (philosophy) for a long time.

    But it is what it is. 😉

    Warranty of due diligence in all possible dimensions of human action, increases the precision of MORAL justification from habit, to reason, to rationalism, to science, to testimonialism.

    Moral justification = Blame Avoidance.

    Testimonialism = Warranty of due diligence.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-06 07:30:00 UTC

  • When the Chinese philosopher (Confucius) failed to solve the problem of politics

    When the Chinese philosopher (Confucius) failed to solve the problem of politics (truthful debate and property and jury) he directed all men into a vast hierarchical family administered by a hierarchical bureaucracy with decidability provided by his version of morality “order/non-conflict”. While this retained the extended Chinese clan/tribe ( family), it caused the eventual stagnation of the polity, economy, bureaucracy and civilization. However, while we in the west solved the problem of politics, we failed to solve the problem of family/clan/polity. Whether in Rome, in the roman church, and in England we failed. Only in Germany – surrounded on three sides – did they grasp the importance of family/clan/tribe/nation as a limit on corporatism.

    And we conquered them for it.

    (sigh)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 11:57:00 UTC

  • THE INCREMENTAL EXPANSION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE INCRE

    THE INCREMENTAL EXPANSION OF PROPERTY INTERESTS IN CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM

    0 – Possession (self insurance at the limit of one’s abilities)

    1 – Property by agreement (self insurance by in-group members)

    2 – Property by norm (group insurance – non specialization in insurance by in-group members)

    3 – Property by law (institutional insurance – specialization in insurance by in-group members)

    4 – Property by military (universal institutional insurance against out-group members)

    But since investment in insurance itself is unavoidably a form of property in toto, then the scale of the polity and the method of insurance determines whether the scope of property is limited to agreement, norm, law, and borders.

    This is as it is and it cannot be otherwise.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 11:04:00 UTC

  • THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AGGRESSION We can measure the higher and lower morality o

    THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AGGRESSION

    We can measure the higher and lower morality of groups by the scope of property that they protect from parasitism – non-reciprocity.

    (see “Incremental Suppression”)

    it is always moral for a more moral order of people to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purposes of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results.

    (“Investment in the production of reciprocity”)

    If it is affordable, it is immoral to fail to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purpose of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results. Otherwise one passes the cost to future generations, and increases the risk that in a period of shock or weakness the less moral people may cause either or both a decline in property, or a decline in morality of the more moral people.

    (“Defense against the deceit of claiming conviction when one is practicing mere convenience: externalizing costs to others.”)

    As far as I know, arguing against this position cannot be done except by the non-reciprocal export of costs upon others. In other words, the failure to aggress against immoral orders can only be explained by immoral actions.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:31:00 UTC

  • “So underneath our sense of ownership there is a Nash equilibrium and maybe a do

    —“So underneath our sense of ownership there is a Nash equilibrium and maybe a dove waiting for the right time to take the place of a hawk.”— Marco Montes Neri

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 19:14:00 UTC

  • What if aliens come? Would they be right in taking the earth?— A right can exi

    —What if aliens come? Would they be right in taking the earth?—

    A right can exist only as a question between peers who are cooperating or may cooperate, or fear not cooperating. Once we are no longer cooperating no ‘right’ exists other than ‘can’. to think otherwise is to fail to mature into an adult. as children we can appeal to parents for judicial resolution (right), as members of a group, appeal to the group for juridical resolution (right), as citizens appeal to the judiciary for juridical resolution (right), and as humans appeal to all sorts of foreign organizations for defense. But when aliens with superior technology come, there is no ‘right’. There is only can. There is no jury judge, or ally to appeal to. Might can make right or wrong, but in the end, if there is to exist ‘right’ it can only be made by might. There is no other possibility. and it is not only foolish to imagine so, criminal to advocate for, but a threat to man, beast, plant, and planet.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 18:33:00 UTC

  • ECONOMICS IN TOTO? I did ‘truth in toto’ (testimonialism) Then I did property in

    ECONOMICS IN TOTO?

    I did ‘truth in toto’ (testimonialism)

    Then I did property in toto. (propertarianism)

    Then I did “law in toto’ (natural law of sovereign men)

    Then i did ‘markets in toto’ (market government)

    Then i did ‘mindfulness in toto’ (stoicism)

    I need to do some bitch-slapping work on economics-in-toto rather than letting this f–king pseudoscientists continue their frauds.

    If you don’t account for capital in toto you are justifying cherrypicking to conduct a fraud.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-30 22:41:00 UTC

  • “I need to learn how you think.”— I don’t feel when I think. I think with time

    —“I need to learn how you think.”—

    I don’t feel when I think. I think with time, property, costs, and reserve sympathetic judgement until the end. It’s just like math in that regard.

    Whenever I hear ‘feel good’ in an argument, I basically know someone is lying/making an err. So I solve the logic of incentives from A to B on that basis.

    When there are no ‘feelings’ involved I know I have found the waypoints. Then I stand back and ask myself how I feel about it. Most people simply cannot develop the mental discipline to think inversely like that.

    People are acquisition machines. Our feelings evolved encourage us to acquire. They evolved to reward us for thoughts of acquisition, acts of acquisition, acquisitions, and they evolved to punish us for losses and thoughts of losses. We merely make excuses along the way, because we need to negotiate with our ‘moral selves’ and negotiate with others.

    And that is perhaps the best way to look at “The Systems”

    System 0 – “acquire evaluation” (brainstem evaluation)

    System 1 – “moral evaluation”

    System 2 – “search” (memory of experiences)

    System 3 – “negotiation” (what we call reason)

    We just happen to be able to use our negotiation to reason – with enough practice to circumvent our moral evaluation.

    reasoning evolved from negotiation I assume.

    This explains (probably) the difference from male and female agency.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 14:41:00 UTC

  • LIBERTINISM REQUIRES FAITH and FRAUD. Faith in the impossible is not an argument

    LIBERTINISM REQUIRES FAITH and FRAUD.

    Faith in the impossible is not an argument. The question is whether anarchy (the limit of rule of law to physical property) can produce a polity that can survive competition in the market for polities.

    (a) all historical evidence is to the contrary.

    (b) a praxeological construction of such a polity is impossible.

    Hence why there is only one possible means of obtaining a condition of liberty (permission for private property), which is:

    (a) reciprocal sovereignty for property in toto

    (b) natural judge discovered common law of property in toto

    (c) and the only methods of organization possible under sovereignty, natural law, and property in toto: markets in all aspects of life.

    (d) and therefore markets for association, cooperation, for reproduction, for the evolution of specialized portfolios of production, distribution and trade, for the production of commons, and the production of polities that produce specialized portfolios of commons.

    All other claims for anarchy are deducible to the following:

    (a) parasitism (theft) upon the commons produced by others.

    Period. End of argument. No further argument other than lie, fraud, error, or faith is possible.

    Faith, like lie, and fraud, is incompatible with reason, science, truth, and therefore incompatible with argument. Error is however compatible with argument. We are all victims of ignorance and error. Ignorance and error are not a choice.

    Faith is a choice.

    CCM chooses faith in order to justify his error and deceit, in order to justify his fraud, in order to justify his attempt to exist parasitically upon the productivity of others that is invested in the commons, since commons produce multipliers.

    Q.E.D. Thus endeth the lesson.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    (PS: yes I just called CCM, like all libertines, a liar, a fraud, and a thief.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 12:49:00 UTC

  • The first question of ethics (cooperation) is ‘why do I not kill you and take yo

    The first question of ethics (cooperation) is ‘why do I not kill you and take your things?’

    The first question of debate is also ‘why do I not kill you and take your things’?

    The answer to both questions is, “Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding for both parties – at least over the medium and long term.”

    But if we we lie, if we cast insults, then we are de-facto, not cooperating, to produce disproportionately rewarding ends. So ethics ends.

    And if we tolerate the existence of people who engage in lie, insult, and fraud, then we are not cooperating with those with whom we cooperate. So Morality Ends.

    So, unbound by cooperation, unbound by ethics, and unbound by morality, we return to violence as of greater benefit than suffering lie and insult and non-cooperation.

    So it is only moral that I kill you and take your things.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 08:31:00 UTC