Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • Video. 1) reading list 2) haidts moral foundations as property rights. 2) proper

    Video.

    1) reading list

    2) haidts moral foundations as property rights.

    2) property and reproductive strategy

    3) politics and reproductive strategy.

    4) the limit if reason at human scsle.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-01 03:38:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS A NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY? Here… A negative externality is produced by ta

    WHAT IS A NEGATIVE EXTERNALITY? Here…

    A negative externality is produced by taking an action that causes an involuntary decrease in an individual’s inventory of property-in-toto* (*’Propertarian’ property defined as that which we demonstrate to be our property by defense of it. Not private property which is a contractual expression of which disputes a community will organize to apply violence against and which not.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-09-29 04:59:00 UTC

  • Law’s Perverse Incentives

    [R]ule of law, given a homogenous and therefore universal definition of property rights, constitutes a central authority. Just as mathematical operations constitute a central authority. Just as the scientific method constitutes a central authority. Humans must make judgements. A central authority can be reduced to judgements and decidability requires humans to make decisions.  If we articulate a sufficiently calculable rule of law, they only need determine the truth or falsehood of human testimony, and all questions are decidable. The problem in constructing rule of law is too often to protect the credibility of the state, so that it does not miscarry justice.  Instead, if we focus on the incentive for truth telling. Incentives: 1) Universal standing (ability to sue), universal vulnerability. 2) Warranty of for one’s truth telling. 3) Restitution plus costs, for truth telling. 4) Triple damages plus costs for not truth telling. 5) Ten times damages for immoral (illegal) directives. No limit of liability. No immunity in the chain of command. All employees personally insured, and all personally accountable. Truth telling matters. Right now lying does not increase risk. And so the law is currently constructed to provide perverse incentives. We all err. We need not lie.

  • Law’s Perverse Incentives

    [R]ule of law, given a homogenous and therefore universal definition of property rights, constitutes a central authority. Just as mathematical operations constitute a central authority. Just as the scientific method constitutes a central authority. Humans must make judgements. A central authority can be reduced to judgements and decidability requires humans to make decisions.  If we articulate a sufficiently calculable rule of law, they only need determine the truth or falsehood of human testimony, and all questions are decidable. The problem in constructing rule of law is too often to protect the credibility of the state, so that it does not miscarry justice.  Instead, if we focus on the incentive for truth telling. Incentives: 1) Universal standing (ability to sue), universal vulnerability. 2) Warranty of for one’s truth telling. 3) Restitution plus costs, for truth telling. 4) Triple damages plus costs for not truth telling. 5) Ten times damages for immoral (illegal) directives. No limit of liability. No immunity in the chain of command. All employees personally insured, and all personally accountable. Truth telling matters. Right now lying does not increase risk. And so the law is currently constructed to provide perverse incentives. We all err. We need not lie.

  • Moral Foundations as Property Rights

    (a central concept of Propertarianism) [O]f Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as individual property rights:

      And three others can be expressed as community property rights covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.

        It should be noted that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe. As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction). When I first read a paper by Jonathan Haidt, years ago now, I immediately understood the implication.  Just as the ten commandments are reducible to “There is but one law: property, and thou shalt not steal”, all our moral rules can be reduced to one: “thou shalt not steal directly or indirectly, by action or inaction.”  These rules are genetic in origin.  They are necessary and immutable.

      • Moral Foundations as Property Rights

        (a central concept of Propertarianism) [O]f Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as individual property rights:

          And three others can be expressed as community property rights covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.

            It should be noted that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe. As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction). When I first read a paper by Jonathan Haidt, years ago now, I immediately understood the implication.  Just as the ten commandments are reducible to “There is but one law: property, and thou shalt not steal”, all our moral rules can be reduced to one: “thou shalt not steal directly or indirectly, by action or inaction.”  These rules are genetic in origin.  They are necessary and immutable.

          • LIBERTY IN MODERNITY ISN’T FOR SIMPLETONS (reposted) People who live in tents, r

            LIBERTY IN MODERNITY ISN’T FOR SIMPLETONS

            (reposted)

            People who live in tents, ride animals, and shepherd other animals, talk about beliefs. People with fixed capital, who live in castles talk about laws. There is a reason for that.

            When you ask people to value something that’s an informal institution we call belief.

            When you tell people that property is a rule that you cannot violate, that’s a formal institution we call law.

            The first is religion. The second is government.

            Is your brand of liberty for goatherds living in tents (religion) that requires belief, or for engineers, builders and craftsmen, (government) that requires laws?

            People who live in tents have very simple property. They need very simple laws.

            Liberty in modernity isn’t for simpletons.

            Try not to think like one.

            Source date (UTC): 2014-09-28 07:29:00 UTC

          • Morals vs Property — (excerpt) Of Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuiti

            — Morals vs Property —

            (excerpt)

            Of Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions three can be expressed as individual property rights:

            1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.)

            2. Proportionality/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.)

            3. Liberty/Oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.)

            And three can be expressed as community property rights covering social capital, which have been and continue to be mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.

            4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity.

            5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.

            6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

            It should be noted that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe.

            As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction).

            Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 03:03:00 UTC

          • WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? In technical terms: 1) “Dishonest Libertarians” (Rothbar

            WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

            In technical terms:

            1) “Dishonest Libertarians” (Rothbardian Libertines) allocate all property and rights to individuals, maintain that unethical and immoral thefts are legal, and grant all individuals universal standing (ability to sue).

            2) Classical liberals (“Honest libertarians”) allocate all property and rights to individuals, grant universal standing, and enforce prohibition on unethical and immoral thefts. Classical liberals also encourage construction of commons and prohibit free riding on commons.

            3) Progressives (Democratic Socialists) argue that all property belongs to the corporation (community) and is leased by corporation managers (government) to individuals temporarily for productive use for the good of the community, and that individuals may keep some of the proceeds from the production that they engage in as reward for helping the community.

            I believe that this is the most accurate distinction currently available. Although I could add detail.

            Source date (UTC): 2014-09-25 13:47:00 UTC

          • LAW’S PERVERSE INCENTIVES Rule of law given a homogenous and therefore universal

            LAW’S PERVERSE INCENTIVES

            Rule of law given a homogenous and therefore universal definition of property rights, constitutes a central authority. Just as mathematical operations constitute a central authority. The question is whether the central authority can be reduced to calculations rather than judgments. Humans must make judgements. If we constitute a sufficient rule of law, they only need determine the truth or falsehood of human testimony.

            Incentives: Restitution plus costs, via truth telling. Triple damages plus costs for deception. Truth telling matters. Right now lying does not increase risk. The law is currently constructed to provide perverse incentives.

            No immunity in the chain of command. All employees personally insured, and personally accountable. Ten times damages for immoral (illegal) directives. No limit of liability.

            We all err. We need not lie.

            Source date (UTC): 2014-09-24 09:47:00 UTC