Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Translating Nietzsche Into Propertarian Language

    “Nietzche: Man is a tortured being trapped between god and beast” Doolittle: Man is a purely rational actor having to constantly choose between the short personal gratification at the expense of others and long term gratification through cooperation with others. With the optimum solution for both short and long term is to achieve personal perfection without causing retaliation by others that would destroy those ambitions. Most of us struggle in one way or another with the constant problem of achievement without causing retaliation (rejection, resistance, restitution, punishment).

    And at the same time we struggle with internal impulse and the impatient desire to achieve our ends and the frustration of having to worry about others rather than only the self. Nietzche uses romantic, poetic, narrative language to make this rather boring statement of cooperative economics. But by using that ancient primitive poetic language he fails to inform us as to the cause. And given that cause how to succeed. Hence why I say that Nietzche and propertarianism are compatible. The question is WHICH IS MORE ACTIONABLE? Read him for inspiration and integration with your soul. Choose Propertarianism as the means of achieving it. In retrospect I see my work as succeeding where Spencer failed. We had Darwin and Nietzche, but because of competition from the ‘new age’ provided by marx economically pseudoscientifiic and immoral Marx and immoral and correlative pseudoscientific keynes, the generation that included Spencer, pareto, weber and durkheim, and the generation that included Mises, Popper, Hayek, Brouwer, and Bridgman all failed. THey failed for the same reason the Greeks failed: they worked from the position of virtue and morality (contribution to commons) instead of simply grasping the reductio simplicity of man: we are all rational actors and choose cooperation when beneficial, and non-cooperation when it is beneficial, and we judge all our actions by the cost vs the likely return, given our experience. Man is not moral per se, he just evolved intuitions to assist him if he DOES wish to act morally because it is in his interest, and he must be cautioned that he will incur retaliation if he acts immorally by imposing costs upon others. So we understand man’s behavior as purely rational, and moral intuitions as warnings that we are likely to incurr retaliation for our actions.

  • Translating Nietzsche Into Propertarian Language

    “Nietzche: Man is a tortured being trapped between god and beast” Doolittle: Man is a purely rational actor having to constantly choose between the short personal gratification at the expense of others and long term gratification through cooperation with others. With the optimum solution for both short and long term is to achieve personal perfection without causing retaliation by others that would destroy those ambitions. Most of us struggle in one way or another with the constant problem of achievement without causing retaliation (rejection, resistance, restitution, punishment).

    And at the same time we struggle with internal impulse and the impatient desire to achieve our ends and the frustration of having to worry about others rather than only the self. Nietzche uses romantic, poetic, narrative language to make this rather boring statement of cooperative economics. But by using that ancient primitive poetic language he fails to inform us as to the cause. And given that cause how to succeed. Hence why I say that Nietzche and propertarianism are compatible. The question is WHICH IS MORE ACTIONABLE? Read him for inspiration and integration with your soul. Choose Propertarianism as the means of achieving it. In retrospect I see my work as succeeding where Spencer failed. We had Darwin and Nietzche, but because of competition from the ‘new age’ provided by marx economically pseudoscientifiic and immoral Marx and immoral and correlative pseudoscientific keynes, the generation that included Spencer, pareto, weber and durkheim, and the generation that included Mises, Popper, Hayek, Brouwer, and Bridgman all failed. THey failed for the same reason the Greeks failed: they worked from the position of virtue and morality (contribution to commons) instead of simply grasping the reductio simplicity of man: we are all rational actors and choose cooperation when beneficial, and non-cooperation when it is beneficial, and we judge all our actions by the cost vs the likely return, given our experience. Man is not moral per se, he just evolved intuitions to assist him if he DOES wish to act morally because it is in his interest, and he must be cautioned that he will incur retaliation if he acts immorally by imposing costs upon others. So we understand man’s behavior as purely rational, and moral intuitions as warnings that we are likely to incurr retaliation for our actions.

  • The Criminality of Rothbardian Ethics

    Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The difference between a commons and private goods, is that owners can consume private goods, and others cannot, whereas no-one can consume commons whether one was a contributor or not. Instead the market (locality) itself benefits from the *externalities* produced by the construction of the commons. So private property prohibits others from consumption, and commons prevent all from consumption. And whereas competition in the market creates incentives to produce private goods, competition in the construction of commons produces malincentives. Why? Because of loss aversion. Given that commons product benefits only be externality, they must be free of privatization in order to provide incentive to produce them. The libertarian solution was to make commons either impossible to produce due to malincentives, or to create vehicles for extraction by externality without contributing to production. pathways through two-dimensional space are particularly problematic since the only way to create private property is with a militia or military funded by the commons.

    The answer instead is to increase incentives for the private production of commons as a status signal and personal monument that outlast’s one’s lifetime, and can be inherited by one’s offspring. And to increase the scale of commons that can be produced by the public (market) production of commons that are free from privatization.

  • The Criminality of Rothbardian Ethics

    Moreover, the this is why libertarians were wrong in privatization. The difference between a commons and private goods, is that owners can consume private goods, and others cannot, whereas no-one can consume commons whether one was a contributor or not. Instead the market (locality) itself benefits from the *externalities* produced by the construction of the commons. So private property prohibits others from consumption, and commons prevent all from consumption. And whereas competition in the market creates incentives to produce private goods, competition in the construction of commons produces malincentives. Why? Because of loss aversion. Given that commons product benefits only be externality, they must be free of privatization in order to provide incentive to produce them. The libertarian solution was to make commons either impossible to produce due to malincentives, or to create vehicles for extraction by externality without contributing to production. pathways through two-dimensional space are particularly problematic since the only way to create private property is with a militia or military funded by the commons.

    The answer instead is to increase incentives for the private production of commons as a status signal and personal monument that outlast’s one’s lifetime, and can be inherited by one’s offspring. And to increase the scale of commons that can be produced by the public (market) production of commons that are free from privatization.

  • Devolve the Empire

    My political agenda is to devolve the empire, to constrain any federal government to defense, insurer or last resort, and interstate property conflict, and to liberate as many states to experiment in as many ways possible, creating lots of opportunity for ‘people at the top’. Let a thousand nations bloom.

  • Devolve the Empire

    My political agenda is to devolve the empire, to constrain any federal government to defense, insurer or last resort, and interstate property conflict, and to liberate as many states to experiment in as many ways possible, creating lots of opportunity for ‘people at the top’. Let a thousand nations bloom.

  • Strictly Constructed Law And Contract

    It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe. The Structure of a Program or Contract ———————————————————— Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist) Return Value (and whereas we wish to produce these ends) Constants and Variables (definitions constructed) Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”) Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions) Functions (clauses that can be performed) Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses) Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value) Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)
    The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived: 1 – Productive 2 – Fully informed 3 – Warrantied 4 – Voluntary Exchange 5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Strictly Constructed Law And Contract

    It’s not that different from programming, which any reasonably intelligent lawyer that can program a bit will readily observe. The Structure of a Program or Contract ———————————————————— Purpose (Whereas these conditions exist) Return Value (and whereas we wish to produce these ends) Constants and Variables (definitions constructed) Objects (constructions from base types / “first principles”) Libraries and Includes ( we refer to these libraries, objects, definitions) Functions (clauses that can be performed) Event Listeners ( criteria that invokes clauses) Operations (assignments of value, comparisons of value) Termination (termination conditions – no infinite loops)
    The only thing preventing law from strict construction was the definition of the first principle from which all constants, variables, objects, operations, and functions are derived: 1 – Productive 2 – Fully informed 3 – Warrantied 4 – Voluntary Exchange 5 – Constrained to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • A Rose By Any Other Name: Aristocratic Egalitarianism And Propertarianism

    —“Q&A: Curt, How Do We Refer To Your Work: Propertarianism or Aristocratic Egalitarianism”— In my view (which may or may not be right) I have written down in rational and scientific terms, the western group evolutionary strategy – the philosophy of the west.

    But it’s a very big scope of work. So what you call it depends upon which perspective you’re looking at it from. Culturally and civilizationally, it’s the philosophy of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. a set of values: Aristocratic, and the criteria for membership: open to anyone who will fight. But if we are to ask what operations and processes do we use within aristocratic egalitarianism that refers to The metaphysics of action, Testimonial Truth and Epistemology, Propertarian Ethics, Market Government, and Aristocratic Ethics (excellence in man) To make things ‘simple’ for people to understand we use the term ‘Propertarianism’ as a shortcut, even though that only technically refers to the ethical component of Aristocratic Egalitarianism. We have debated using Testimonialism in order to place truth above property, but this term borders on the platonic, so we prefer the ‘real’ – propertarianism as a ‘common’ name for philosophical arguments that constitute the cultural strategy of the western indo European people we call Aryans: Aristocratic Egalitarianism. So that’s the full explanation. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev, Ukraine

  • A Rose By Any Other Name: Aristocratic Egalitarianism And Propertarianism

    —“Q&A: Curt, How Do We Refer To Your Work: Propertarianism or Aristocratic Egalitarianism”— In my view (which may or may not be right) I have written down in rational and scientific terms, the western group evolutionary strategy – the philosophy of the west.

    But it’s a very big scope of work. So what you call it depends upon which perspective you’re looking at it from. Culturally and civilizationally, it’s the philosophy of the west: aristocratic egalitarianism. a set of values: Aristocratic, and the criteria for membership: open to anyone who will fight. But if we are to ask what operations and processes do we use within aristocratic egalitarianism that refers to The metaphysics of action, Testimonial Truth and Epistemology, Propertarian Ethics, Market Government, and Aristocratic Ethics (excellence in man) To make things ‘simple’ for people to understand we use the term ‘Propertarianism’ as a shortcut, even though that only technically refers to the ethical component of Aristocratic Egalitarianism. We have debated using Testimonialism in order to place truth above property, but this term borders on the platonic, so we prefer the ‘real’ – propertarianism as a ‘common’ name for philosophical arguments that constitute the cultural strategy of the western indo European people we call Aryans: Aristocratic Egalitarianism. So that’s the full explanation. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute The Philosophy of Aristocracy Kiev, Ukraine