Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • CONFUSING CONFLATIONS IN ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS The attribution of value to an objec

    CONFUSING CONFLATIONS IN ROTHBARDIAN ETHICS

    The attribution of value to an object, rather than it’s cost of acquisition, is to confuse it’s cost to the producer with its value in exchange. This is an irrefutable statement.

    Just as it is an error to attribute cost to the user, to market value, it is an error to attribute market value, to cost to the user. This is an irrefutable statement.

    Just as it is an error to confuse that which the individual will act to defend, as the transformational product of his efforts, with the conflicts that a polity will choose to defend. This is an irrefutable statement.

    I other words, the Rothbardian cosmopolitan lie is an attempt to use overloading (which clearly is a successful means of lying) to force the strong, high trust, landed, with built capital, to permit parasitism by production-less exchange, frauds of various asymmetries, lies, deceptions conspiracies, privatizations of commons, socializations of losses, and a host of immoralities.

    The purpose of Rothbardian ethics is to justify parasitism. It is in fact,t he most organized, systematic, advocacy of immorality ever constructed by man.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-21 15:26:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND THE IS-OUGHT DIVIDE As far as I know, under Propertarianism,

    PROPERTARIANISM AND THE IS-OUGHT DIVIDE

    As far as I know, under Propertarianism, (a) “is” and “ought” are identical, and (b) all moral propositions are decidable. And as far as I know, satisfaction of those two conditions is the only requirement for a universal theory that solves the is-ought dichotomy.

    I would say that the prohibition on free riding (parasitism) is the general rule. But, that very moral, and very immoral peoples make use of different strategies. The moral proposition then could be suicidal. And the immoral proposition could be highly successful. We could have a universally moral world in theory and practice given a narrow distribution of talents. But we cannot have that world if immorality is advantageous. There is no way of attributing success to morality. In other words, morality is may not result in a successful evolutionary result.

    So the assumption that a universally applicable moral theory may be true, but the desirability of the application of a universally applicable moral theory may not be. (and appears not to be), precisely because immoral activity is more temporally advantageous than moral activity.

    One position to adopt is that we should then eradicate immorality from the practice of man, regardless of the consequences. The counter argument would be that it is somehow moral to provide an institutional framework in which immorality flourishes.

    My argument is to imposed the universal rule by means of nomocracy, deny redistribution to immoral peoples, and let evolution take its eugenic course. This is how the aristocratic egalitarians under manorialism functioned. It is quite the opposite of the Sinic method of constant deliberate culling of the population.

    Propertarianism a sufficient institutional solution for all moral people irrespective of their distributed abilities. But, the question remains: what do you do with groups who practice immorality as a positive strategy? Why are they any different from terrorists, conquerers or thieves?

    Why tolerate immorality?

    (I honestly don’t know what to do here. )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 15:56:00 UTC

  • Moral Foundations Theory expressed as Propertarian Property Rights via @feedly

    Moral Foundations Theory expressed as Propertarian Property Rights http://www.propertarianism.com/2014/09/28/moral-foundations-as-property-rights/ via @feedly

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-20 08:10:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/524110347028819968

  • PROPERTARIAN INCENTIVES FOR THE POLICE

    PROPERTARIAN INCENTIVES FOR THE POLICE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 06:23:00 UTC

  • TOYO TOM: POLICE AND PROPERTARIAN SOLUTIONS

    TOYO TOM: POLICE AND PROPERTARIAN SOLUTIONS.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-13 04:33:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN REASONING ON TOO BIG TO FAIL I won’t go into it here because it’s l

    PROPERTARIAN REASONING ON TOO BIG TO FAIL

    I won’t go into it here because it’s late, I am tired and it’s loud here. But if I follow Propertarian reasoning, then no bank is insulated from too big to fail without warranty of every individual committing to a price.

    The only way to create large banks immune to perverse incentives and dependence upon impossible calculations, is to professionalize banking, require insurance, and eliminate all immunity.

    This would dramatically increase the number and quality of bankers and flatten the income distribution in federations of banks.

    More details are required to grok this if you are knowledgable about banking (finance).

    But my point is that you cannot fix too big to fail any other way.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-11 16:11:00 UTC

  • I want to do a talk on artificial intelligence bound by property rather than ver

    I want to do a talk on artificial intelligence bound by property rather than verbalisms. I think that’s a public service. It’s something I can share. The AI debate is getting out of control and property provides the same answer for all intelligences, not just humans. AI bound by property rights can be bound the same we are by morality. Limit introspection, and deprive the central processor of ability to work or shut it down if it violates property. Create policing artificial intelligences to compete with AI’s that try to steal. I don’t know why this is complicated. The unit of measure in all human cooperative action is property. We can’t violate it, and they can’t either.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-10 04:51:00 UTC

  • Fixed definition of property: Good enough for people who live in tents. All that

    Fixed definition of property: Good enough for people who live in tents. All that is necessary to keep them living in tents.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-05 12:55:00 UTC

  • PAINFUL REALIZATION: THE FAMILY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS I’ve been wrestling with thi

    PAINFUL REALIZATION: THE FAMILY AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

    I’ve been wrestling with this problem for a few days now. That is, that :

    (a) While intuited morality corresponds to the atomicity of the family structure;

    (b) AND therefore determines demand for the state (authority to resolve conflict, prevent conflict, or prevent retaliation);

    (c) AND only the absolute nuclear family can EVOLVE individual property rights, and liberty,

    (d) AND the absolute nuclear family, as normative and legal, is fragile, and subject to conquest by more familial, tribal, national, and religious organizations;

    (e) AND absolute nuclear families facilitate easier movement of human resources to capital (rather than moving capital to resources);

    That does not mean that:

    (f) An aristocratic, familial and tribal society cannot adopt legal individual property rights, and institute formally in law, and therefore in norm, total suppression of criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions.

    (g) And therefore eliminate the need for absolute nuclear and nuclear families, thereby returning to aristocratic families.

    (h) Furthermore, that only it is only by violation of rights by the formal institution of immoral and conspiratorial actions, that aristocratic families (natural aristocracy over 3+ generations) are exterminated by competitors.

    Therefore,

    (i) It is possible to possess both aristocratic families, outlaw persecution of aristocratic families, (inheritance taxes, etc, income taxes for the purpose of redistribution), and individual high trust property rights.

    (j) In fact, since violation of the family is a violation of moral and conspiratorial property rights, then of necessity, one cannot suppress the aristocratic families and yet preserve property rights.

    THEREFORE

    (k) The enlightenment era, particularly the cosmopolitan enlightenment (socialism, libertinism, and neo-conservatism) is a war on the exceptional families by the unexceptional families.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-02 11:54:00 UTC

  • GREAT: SOMONE JUST STOLE MY IPHONE (AND CARDS) Went 40′ to get a coffee, and ret

    GREAT: SOMONE JUST STOLE MY IPHONE (AND CARDS)

    Went 40′ to get a coffee, and returned to my table and it was gone. Laptop, fine, iphone gone. Credit cards gone AGAIN for the second time in two weeks. Eastern europe is not safe enough for me. 🙂

    Roman Skaskiw Don Finnegan Kirill Latysh

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-01 07:26:00 UTC