Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • ARISTOCRACY IS JUST SELF DEFENSE We had it backwards. Aristocracy simply didn’t

    ARISTOCRACY IS JUST SELF DEFENSE

    We had it backwards. Aristocracy simply didn’t adapt to the change in membership in the cult of property rights fast enough.

    If you can’t convince the anti-aristocrats to go along and create an ‘aristocracy of everybody’ promised by the enlightenment, then the alternative is natural Aristocracy: Self Defense.

    Pay people to get married, cohabitate, and breed. Pay the poor and unable, not to have children. Tax, impoverish, and punish those that are dependent. Care for the physically disabled.

    Just how it is. Otherwise. No families. No morality. No high trust. Married class vs unmarried class warfare.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-16 04:23:00 UTC

  • THE ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY, IS A FAILURE It isnt’ just that the majority canno

    THE ARISTOCRACY OF EVERYBODY, IS A FAILURE

    It isnt’ just that the majority cannot join the aristocracy, and earn, use and keep property rights. It is that they do not desire to earn, use and keep property rights. People want the benefits of aristocracy but not the effort. They want to be serfs. They want to be taken care of. They don’t want to bear risks. They don’t want to compete, And they aren’t able to. And they demonstrate it at every opportunity.

    Having empirically proven that the enlightenment effort to bring all of mankind into the aristocracy, has been a catastrophic failure, and at present is threatening western civilization; the question is then, whether we abandon the enlightenment goal of an ‘aristocracy of everybody’, and demand property rights by force of arms once again, as we previously civilized the barbarians of teh world, or whether we let ourselves, our civilization and aristocracy die.

    Not with a roar of triumph. Not with a whimper. But with silent cowardice.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-15 13:10:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: Why don’t we call ‘liberty’ what it is? “ARISTOCRACY” “Western Aristoc

    QUESTION:

    Why don’t we call ‘liberty’ what it is? “ARISTOCRACY”

    “Western Aristocratic, Egalitarian, Propertarianism”

    Those who CREATE the institution of property, earn the RIGHT of property.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-11 06:49:00 UTC

  • NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN” An early libertarian movie. In the b

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YWyCCJ6B2WE”PAY NO ATTENTION TO THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN”

    An early libertarian movie.

    In the book Dorothy’s slippers are made of silver (hard money)

    The great and powerful OZ is the theatre of government.

    Your only freedom from government is hard money.

    Now, I have a different theory, that is supported by better facts.

    Dorothy should have carried a sword and stuck OZ with it.

    The militia is the only ‘we’. Government is a small lottocratically elected group of citizens employed by ‘us’. The purpose of the militia is to PREVENT the STATE, and constrain government to property rights.

    Let every man be armed.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-11 06:46:00 UTC

  • YOU’VE GOT IT BACKWARDS : ARISTOCRACY Aristocracy CREATES property rights by for

    YOU’VE GOT IT BACKWARDS : ARISTOCRACY

    Aristocracy CREATES property rights by forcibly demanding them of everyone he or she encounters, under the threat that he restricts his use of his WEALTH of VIOLENCE, only upon the condition that all others do so as well.

    It is not that the world desires property rights. Demonstrably that is false. What the world desires is to be taken care of and to consume, as a comfortable slave or farm animal.

    To be human, requires property.

    The only possible form of HUMANISM is ARISTOCRACY that demands by the threat of violence, property rights for all.

    Without property you are not human. You are only an animal, herded and shepherded like any other.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-08 10:37:00 UTC

  • 1) ON THE PURPOSE OF SCRIPTURAL VERSUS RATIONAL AND RATIO-SCIENTIFIC IDEOLOGIES.

    1) ON THE PURPOSE OF SCRIPTURAL VERSUS RATIONAL AND RATIO-SCIENTIFIC IDEOLOGIES. 2) ON THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS AND LIBERTY.

    (good read)

    (Quotable)

    “I don’t like package deals. That’s mainly the reason I don’t identify with a particular political position. If I end up looking like a libertarian, it’s only because they happen to be where I’m going anyway. I reserve the right to do my own thinking.” – Kenneth Allen Hopf

    COMMENT

    Ideologies can be as rigid as scripture to which you must adhere (totalitarianism), or mere boundary conditions that describe similar sentiments (freedom). They are both means of obtaining political power. The first is a means of coercion into dogma by threat of ostracization. The second a means of affiliation by promise of opportunity.

    However, both scriptural threat and sentimental promise, are predicated on the absence of ratio-scientific knowledge. In the face of evidence of what man REALLY DOES with democracy, what he does with his economy, with his social order, with his freedom, with his laws, then we no longer are faced with an era of IDEOLOGY.

    We are faced with the outcome of the era of ideology. And the outcome of that era is that the SUCCESS of rich democratic countries had nothing to do with their democracy. Democracy is a luxury good that was ALSO made possible wealth.

    THE SOURCE OF THE WEST’S WEALTH AND PROSPERITY

    But that wealth had nothing to do with democracy. It had to do with:

    1) The aristocratic egalitarian ethics of cattle raiding, land holders, bronze, the horse, the wheel, and chariot, who used inferior numbers, and voluntary, organized, cavalry tactics that required high personal and familial investment, as well as voluntary cooperation in tactics for shared risk and gain. The tendency to adopt disruption in the form of new technology, new members, and new leaders – because enfranchisement meant rights to private property and elected leaders rather than community property and static leaders.

    2) Small homogenous countries – first Pagan, but the more protestant and german the better, operating as extended families, with the high trust of extended families.

    3) The prohibition on cousin-marriage out to six or ten generations, and the Absolute Nuclear Family (ANF) as the organizational unit of production AND reproduction.

    4) Common law, individual property rights, and rule of law. money, accounting, interest, credit and banking.

    5) The manorial system that suppressed the fertility of the underclasses, and created the ‘protestant ethic’ in all of society, by requiring conformity to good practice in order to obtain access to rented land, and reproduction.

    6) The evolution of credit backed by ‘the extended family’ represented by the state.

    7) Plagues that suppressed and reversed the fertility of the underclasses, and which forced the upper classes to spread into the work force.

    8) An ’empirical bias’: a preferential bias toward, and continuous development of, technical, scientific, practical solutions. We cannot tell if this bias genetic or not yet but in part, it is beginning to look like a) minority status, b) competitive value of technology to compensate for small numbers, c) balance between verbal and spatial intelligence d) habituation.

    9) The discovery and conquest of the New World and the subsequent trade, at a time when a plague had wiped out vast portions of north american indians.

    10) The weakness of the Ottoman empire, Indian continent and the Chinese empire, from institutional decay. (In China, the failure to develop institutions of ‘calculation’ at scale and reliance on moral rather than empirical arguments. In Arabia, the persistent problem of ignorance, tribalism, low IQ, and inbreeding.) The weakness of the colonies, and the relative disparity in technological, calculative, and social development of the rest of the world meant the easy imposition of trade. And the re-adoption of ratio-scientism as a competitive advantage in the west while the other states had either fought it off intentionally (Islamic Civilization, Chinese Civilization), or who could not for a variety of reasons make use of it (Hindu civilization).

    ON CALCULATION

    The importance of calculation was I think, discovered or at least elucidated by Weber. But calculation is important, because it is NECESSARY. Without means of calculation, as the society becomes increasingly complex,

    SCALE AND DYNAMISM – ADAPTATION – EVOLUTION

    The state is often credited with the origin of calculative technologies. But this is to overstate the ‘state’ in its primitive origins in the fertile crescent. However, these small city states had all the properties of western city states, but earlier. THey created their innovation when they were small. They LOST their innovation when they became states and empires.

    THE STATE CALCIFIES – EVERYTHING. PRIVATE PROPERTY DOES THE OPPOSITE. IT MAKES EVERYTHING DYNAMIC, ITERATIVE, ADAPTIVE.

    The state makes fragility. It trades certainty for stagnation.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-03 11:56:00 UTC

  • LIBERALS GET CHEAP STATUS BY GIVING AWAY WHAT ISN’T THEIRS “…showcasing libera

    LIBERALS GET CHEAP STATUS BY GIVING AWAY WHAT ISN’T THEIRS

    “…showcasing liberal values is a form of conspicuous consumption….”

    Expensive drug addiction problem that they have. It turns out those endorphins are really expensive for EVERYONE ELSE.

    You ever watch some gushing women come to near tears at the thought of giving blood? That’s drug addiction. Just like stress addiction. Anger addiction, or thrill addiction.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-29 16:33:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM : UNITING HOPPE AND HAYEK “Hayek’s work composes a system of ide

    PROPERTARIANISM : UNITING HOPPE AND HAYEK

    “Hayek’s work composes a system of ideas, fully as ambitious as the systems of Mill and Marx, but far less vulnerable to criticism than theirs because it is grounded on a philosophically defensible view of the scope and limits of human reason. “

    –John N. Gray, in Hayek on Liberty (1984), Preface, p. ix

    COMMENT

    I originally thought I was trying to reconcile Hayek and Mises — at least, that’s what I remember saying to Walter Block — but really, it turns out, that it’s Mises (calculation), Hoppe (institutions), Rothbard (property as calculation) and Hayek (limits of reason) that needed uniting.

    If you stop for a moment, long enough to grasp that we do not need to JUSTIFY libertarianism (philosophy) as much as simply UNDERSTAND human moral behavior (science), then the question is not what we should choose to believe or prefer to believe, but only what institutions compensate for the deficiencies in our ability to cooperate because of fragmentary knowledge, AND cognitive and moral biases. The result is a libertarian bias in the formation all institutions.

    The problem is not ‘what we should do’ but ‘what can we not do’ without institutions to assist us in cooperating where we cannot cooperate without them. Where cooperation means to cooperate with people we do not and cannot know on means of achieving multiplicative ends, many of which are in conflict, and all of which represent our individual reproductive strategies.

    It’s common for us to discuss Capital in all its forms: Financial, Physical, Institutional, Human and Social.

    But, I don’t like the term ‘social capital’ for a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is that the term ‘social’ is heavily loaded. But most importantly, because for the female, collectively-biased mind, ‘social’ implies ‘agreement and consent’.

    Whereas, my preferred term, “informal institutions” consisting of manners, ethics, morals, habits, traditions, rituals, myths, metaphysical biases, is a largely involuntary, non-consensual, habituated rules, reduced to intuitions, many of which we may not even be aware of – and most which we cannot distinguish from biological and genetic instinct.

    It’s common for us to discuss Capital in all its forms:

    1) Human Capital,

    2) Informal Institutional Capital,

    3) Intellectual Capital,

    4) Formal institutional Capital,

    5) Physical Capital,

    6) Financial Capital,

    7) Geographic Capital.

    And to do so in that order, as a sequence from the human being, to physical space, and each dependent upon its priors.

    A SYSTEM OF IDEAS

    Extending property to the full suite of categories which human beings demonstrate that they treat as property, we are able to reconcile the Austro-libertarian program and rescue it from its past errors. We can take calculation and praxeology from mises, and complete praxeology as a biologically based science of incentives, remove deduction from it, but retain praxeology’s ability to test any incentive given the similarity of our sensitivity to incentives. We can take Hayek and show that he simply did not make the connection between the various categories of property and his insights into the limits of information and knowledge.

    We are able to reduce to very compact form, the theory of human cooperation, as non-arbitrary, entirely rational pursuit of our reproductive strategy in whatever organization we are members of.

    COMPACTLY STATED

    To unite these thinkers into ratio-scientific form requires only the following limited steps:

    0) Start with private property, and voluntary exchange

    1) Add remaining categories of property

    2) Add ethical requirement for symmetry and warranty

    3) Add ethical requirement against transfer by externality

    4) Add ethical requirement for operational language

    5) Add ethical requirement for ‘calculability’ (retention of relation)

    6) Add institutional government by contract not law.

    The rest is a set of tactics that require only different levels of technology to achieve the same result.

    THE REASON FOR MORAL DIVERSITY IS THE EXPRESSION OF REPRODUCTIVE INDIVIDUALISM UNDER POST INDUSTRIALISM’S WEALTH

    People pursue their economic and reproductive interests, but only as long as there is an incentive and a means to do so. We are not equal in our reproductive value – which is obvious. Just as we are not equal in our economic value – value to each other.

    The diversity of moral biases increases with the diversity of the reproductive structure. If we all exist in nuclear families in one group, and all exist in tribes in another, then the moral code that he nuclear families operate between all members of all groups, will differ from the bifurcated morally of the tribal group. Because the tribal group treats all non-family as another ‘state’ just as the nuclear families treat all individuals as belonging to their family. This creates an asymmetry of morals, since at all times, both sides attempt to keep all rewards in their families. Except that the nuclear family system keeps rewards universally, and the tribal family does not. As such the nuclear family is easy prey to the immorality of the tribal family.

    Furthermore, under matrilinealism, women trade sex and affection for calories, where as under paternalism men trade calories and security for sex and care-taking using property. In each system there is a bias in reproductive control for each gender.

    Under the nuclear, traditional, and extended families, our reproductive male and female strategies are politically homogenized since what is politically good for one is good for the other. But under the dissolution of the family into single parenthood, and roaming males, reproductive interests are polarized between each group.

    And that is what we see in modern democracy, with the only difference that military prowess (power) gives nations a more masculine character, and lack of it gives nations are more feminine character.

    SCOPE AND SIMPLICITY

    As I write this I’m reminded that it does take an entire book to cover an ethical topic of this breadth. But comforted slightly that once the breadth is understood as a system, it is possible to reduce it to a compact set of rules or laws, and therefore, both fitting the criteria of explanatory power, and the requirement that society consist of very simple, basic rules, comprehensible to anyone.

    And since propertarianism is the codification of instinctual biology in verbal form using property as the means of commensurability, then it is both possible for humans to universally sense, perceive, and comprehend those simple basic additions – additions which in effect, ask us to extend and warrantee all exchanges, verbal and material, to all human beings, as if they were members of our traditional family.

    And as such, create a family in practice despite what are a multitude of families with different preferences, needs, means and ends.

    Cheers

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev 2013

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-23 05:28:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN COMMENSURABILITY 1) Words make experiences commensurable. 2) Number

    PROPERTARIAN COMMENSURABILITY

    1) Words make experiences commensurable.

    2) Numbers make the imperceptible commensurable.

    3) Money makes subjective value commensurable.

    4) PROPERTY MAKES MORALS COMMENSURABLE.

    5) Reproductive strategy makes morals rational and non-arbitrary.

    The problem is, you have to define property as people actually use it, as they demonstrate by their actions.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-19 15:47:00 UTC

  • I don’t know what the difference is between you controlling your body and me con

    I don’t know what the difference is between you controlling your body and me controlling my money. Why is it ok for you to have control over my productivity if I can’t have control over your productivity? I mean, isn’t my productivity the equivalent of your reproductivity?

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-14 16:29:00 UTC