Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Information Systems for the Persistence of Man

    SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR)

    (profound) (worth repeating)

    [O]ur logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.

    And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.

    Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.

    Reason (Stanovich’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Stanovich’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration ( Doolittle’s System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev.

  • Information Systems for the Persistence of Man

    SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR)

    (profound) (worth repeating)

    [O]ur logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.

    And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.

    Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.

    Reason (Stanovich’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Stanovich’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration ( Doolittle’s System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev.

  • Laws Prohibit Involuntary Transfer. Contracts Exchange Rights.

    [I]n writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized. Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.

    Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate. But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).

  • Laws Prohibit Involuntary Transfer. Contracts Exchange Rights.

    [I]n writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized. Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.

    Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate. But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).

  • @NRx #tcot Privatizing Public Spaces defends them from consumption

    @NRx #tcot Privatizing Public Spaces defends them from consumption. https://twitter.com/xmjEE/status/615085818957430784

  • LAWS PROHIBIT INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER – CONTRACTS EXCHANGE RIGHTS. In writing a new

    LAWS PROHIBIT INVOLUNTARY TRANSFER – CONTRACTS EXCHANGE RIGHTS.

    In writing a new constitution, we can easily deprive the government(producers of commons) and the judiciary(adjudication of law) of the ability to make law. The only laws that can possibly exist are those that prohibit a means of free riding (parasitism/imposing costs). And those laws must be found (discovered), theorized.

    Conversely, all positive rights can only possibly exist as contractual provisions in matters of exchange. The justness of contracts is something that we know how to do, and have done throughout our history.

    Now we can, each of us, either negotiate directly, or grant to some person, or some party, the right to negotiate contracts on our behalf. And to be bound by the contract that they negotiate.

    But in no case can I make a contract (a negotiation) that is unlawful – imposes involuntary transfers, or externalizes involuntary transfers. Nor can I engage in deceit in such contracts, by means of verbal obscurantism (non-operational language, or in violation of strict construction, or its quantitative equivalent laundering and pooling (money).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-28 07:36:00 UTC

  • SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE D

    SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY, 1-INTUITION, 2-REASON, 3-COOPERATION(REPRODUCTIVE DIVISION OF PERCEPTION, COGNITION, KNOWLEDGE, LABOR)

    (profound) (worth repeating)

    Our logical capacity extends to the limits defined by the flight of an arrow. For more complex multi-dimensional relations we resort to the cartesian representations. And if the problem is more complicated than that, then our reason, and ability to envision causal relations, is terribly frail.

    And if I am correct (and it appears at present that I am), then “System 0″ is little more than a producer of reward and punishment endorphins in response to increases or decreases in an individual’s inventory of “property”. Property that is necessary for his life, cooperation and reproduction.

    Emotions are reactions to changes in state. Changes in state are determined by changes in property. Humans act to acquire that which improves their condition. Humans resent, and punish, at great personal expense, appropriations of that which they have acted to acquire.

    Reason (Kahneman’s System “2”) rides on the elephant of intuition (Kahneman’s System “1”), whose objects of consideration (System “0”) are what we call ‘property’. Our brains are difference engines. And we calculate differences in property: that which we have acted to obtain.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-27 11:16:00 UTC

  • IF IT CAN”T BE EMBODIED IN LAW, IT IS MEANINGLESS. I don’t write continental phi

    IF IT CAN”T BE EMBODIED IN LAW, IT IS MEANINGLESS.

    I don’t write continental philosophy. I write analytic philosophy. And I can state Propertarianism as law. THat’s the problem I have with NRx. It’s good as a language. It’s good at educating. But it doesn’t provide a solution to post-agrarian polities, and it can’t be embodied in law. I still feel that Propertarianism is part of the reactionary movement, even if I don’t really have much to do with Moldbuggery.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-22 08:56:00 UTC

  • Position on Marriage?  It’s a Contract.

    [M]y position is that the state has no place in private contracts, and that a marriage is a private contract.

    My concern is that the nation produce laws for individuals and policy for families and this may further reduce the policy bias toward the family as a unit of production and reproduction, and increasingly toward the consumption (hedonism) of individuals – dysgenia.

    A marriage creates a corporation in which shareholders pool assets, and it conveys limited power of attorney, to both (or more) shareholders to act on behalf of the other. If prenuptial agreements are adhered to rigidly, and there is no child support or spousal support then I am happy with it.

    So my suggestion is to take the Alabama strategy and remove the state from marriage agreements, and let people engage in whatever relations they want.

    So I am against state marriage en toto, and fully supportive of any voluntary contract that people wish to enter into. I would be comfortable with polygamy/polyamory evolving. But when I say I believe these things, it’s in the context of freedom of association and disassociation. So if you don’t want to serve polygamists, you don’t have to.

  • Position on Marriage?  It’s a Contract.

    [M]y position is that the state has no place in private contracts, and that a marriage is a private contract.

    My concern is that the nation produce laws for individuals and policy for families and this may further reduce the policy bias toward the family as a unit of production and reproduction, and increasingly toward the consumption (hedonism) of individuals – dysgenia.

    A marriage creates a corporation in which shareholders pool assets, and it conveys limited power of attorney, to both (or more) shareholders to act on behalf of the other. If prenuptial agreements are adhered to rigidly, and there is no child support or spousal support then I am happy with it.

    So my suggestion is to take the Alabama strategy and remove the state from marriage agreements, and let people engage in whatever relations they want.

    So I am against state marriage en toto, and fully supportive of any voluntary contract that people wish to enter into. I would be comfortable with polygamy/polyamory evolving. But when I say I believe these things, it’s in the context of freedom of association and disassociation. So if you don’t want to serve polygamists, you don’t have to.