Curt Doolittle

Theme: Property

  • “ARISTOCRATIC PROPERTARIAN EGALITARIANISM” Distributed government. Property righ

    “ARISTOCRATIC PROPERTARIAN EGALITARIANISM”

    Distributed government.

    Property rights for all.

    Equality of merit.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-12 12:03:00 UTC

  • DEADLY SINS” (important) Propertarianism captures the universal human moral intu

    http://www.propertarianism.com/”PROPERTARIANISM’S DEADLY SINS” (important)

    Propertarianism captures the universal human moral intuition that prohibits involuntary transfer, and then presses all competition into the market for goods and services under the requirements of transparency and warranty so that competition is, while intuitively immoral to many, a system of incentives that produces a virtuous cycle of innovation, production and adaptation.

    All rights in all moral systems are reducible to statements of property rights – assuming we take a descriptive definition of property not a proscriptive one.

    DEADLY SINS

    Murder

    Violence

    Theft

    Fraud

    Omission

    Impedance

    Externalization

    Free-Riding

    Privatization

    Socialization

    Rent-Seeking

    Corruption

    Obfuscation

    Pooling-and-Laundering

    Conspiracy

    Legislation

    Taxation

    Conscription

    War

    Genocide

    Do you want to know why my book is taking so long?

    Because there are a lot of deadly sins.

    http://www.propertarianism.com/

    VIRTUES

    Property,

    symmetry,

    warranty,

    internality,

    operational language,

    “calculability”,

    contract,

    natural law,

    common law,

    voluntary commons.

    Still not done with the second list. I need to find a way to talk about calculability more accessibly.

    PROPERTIES

    Personal (Private, Several)

    Interpersonal

    Normative

    Institutional

    Artificial

    PROPERTARIANISM IS THE RHETORICAL SOLUTION TO POLITICAL DISCOURSE

    It’s what praxeology should have been. It’s what conservatives and libertarians need. It’s what progressives and progressive libertarians should fear. Because it’s true. Its explanatory power is universal, and independent of any moral code. And it is based upon testable empirical science. Humans vehemently reject involuntary transfers of property. They just differ on the distribution of ownership of property. And they differ because of their necessary and inalterable reproductive strategies.

    COMMON GOODS

    There can be no common good unless there are common interests. We can learn from the market that we can cooperate on means even if we have alternate ends. But democracy is a family model, and assumes de facto, that we have common or optimally common ends. When we do not, because reproductive and productive strategies are not longer sufficiently homogenous. Democracy can assist us in establishing priorities from common interests, but it cannot assist us in establishing goals between disparate and conflicting interests – such as those that we have under a division of knowledge and labor as extreme as under industrialism and information economies.

    MONOPOLY

    There is no reason for monopoly bureaucracy and monopoly government in a diverse heterogeneous population. In this environment democracy is simply a means of conquest of one or more groups by others.

    It is possible to construct means of achieving the benefits of scale organizations in insurance, investment in the commons, and group bargaining over trade. And to do so without a monopoly.

    Democratic and representative government is an artifact of the age of agrarianism and sail. It’s time for a reformation. We have to adapt government to our new diversity. And that means, small states, and governments that facilitate ANY cooperation, not just those that are approved by the majority. And that approach will make law making impossible, only contract negotiation. Because laws are local phenomenon, and contracts for the commons are not. They are merely cooperation at scale, on goods that cannot be produced by the market because free riding prohibits their construction.

    More later. But that is the essence of Propertarianism in a few thousand words.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-10 07:21:00 UTC

  • ANIMAL RIGHTS If you cannot be trusted with the care of an animal – pet or prope

    ANIMAL RIGHTS

    If you cannot be trusted with the care of an animal – pet or property. Then we cannot trust you with care of the rest of us.

    Simple people use empathy toward animals moral and legal claims, and anthropomorphize all sorts of things instead of using reason.

    But what they intuit in their arationalism is at least functionally correct if not causally correct.

    The seek to protect the victim because it is less aggressive and confrontational than punishing the actor. It is an effective technique but a dishonest one.

    And as such, these people – sensitives – perform a function even though their arguments are arational justifications of their intuitions.

    Unfortunately their arationality creates consequences that are morally, politically and legally damaging to civilization.

    Those of us who because of our lack of fear in confrontation or punishment, have the luxury of honesty, certainly feel compassion for our pets, animals and wildlife. But we correctly understand that not only are the animals a commons that they should respect no matter who cares for them, but that someone sick enough to harm creatures for emotional reasons of any kind, is a danger to all of us. And science has thankfully finally proven why – genetic and birth defect exacerbated by living in families with the same defects.

    Tolerance is not a good thing without accompaniment by training. Without correction it is not tolerance but convenience.

    Animals cannot have rights since they cannot enter into contract. A few pets to some degree can closely imitate that contract (dogs) at the level if a child when dependency forms.

    Humans have contractual obligations with each other not to be cruel to animals. As such it is your contractual duty to the rest of us – your price for our promise not to use violence against you, and to cooperate peaceably with you – that you treat animals as if they are human whenever possible as a ritualistic test of your adherence to contract.

    This contract is a necessary natural law that does not need codification. Natural laws are the minimum rules for peaceful cooperation. They are reducible to statements of property rights. And they are necessary. Human rights are not necessary, they are aspirations once natural rights have been achieved.

    And should you break that contract if natural law, the foolish and weak may shame you and claim animals have rights because they lack the intelligence, wisdom, means and capacity to punish you for violating natural law and demonstrating you are unfit for the contract by which we agree to cooperate, and rescind our use of violence.

    But those of us wise and strong enough will be honest with you.

    And since you have broken the contract of natural law with us, we are no longer forbidden to use violence.

    And we will logically, rationally, wisely, and legally under natural law, punish you sufficiently that you either will not, or cannot, do so again.

    That punishment too, is part of the contract that the strong agree to.

    Curt

    (Propertarianism in application)

    ( also another example of solipsism on one end and autism on the other. )

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-10 04:59:00 UTC

  • “I AM WILLING TO LET YOU HAVE YOUR MORAL CODE, AS LONG AS YOU LET ME HAVE MY MOR

    “I AM WILLING TO LET YOU HAVE YOUR MORAL CODE, AS LONG AS YOU LET ME HAVE MY MORAL CODE”

    But the only way that is physically or logically possible is if we respect each other’s property rights.

    This is the genius of property rights as a social order compared to majority rule government as a social order.

    Property rights make all more complex moral codes possible. Without them no cooperation between peoples with different moral codes is possible.

    This is why democratic government cannot survive heterogeneity – ‘diversity’. People in any democratic body politic must have the same status signals, family structures, metaphysical value judgements, and even similar economic interests.

    Otherwise, majority rules is a means of destroying the market for cooperation inside the body politic, and by consequence, outside the body politic as well.

    Democratic government in any heterogeneous polity must and will lead to economic decay.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 17:14:00 UTC

  • W.E.I.R.D.(Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic) WEIRD Societi

    W.E.I.R.D.(Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich and Democratic)

    WEIRD Societies Think Differently

    Why? Nuclear Family and Individual Property Rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 06:34:00 UTC

  • Last week, one of our lawyers, spent thirty minutes telling us how we could obey

    Last week, one of our lawyers, spent thirty minutes telling us how we could obey the law and screw our shareholders. Our legal system has lost all concept of property rights and involuntary transfer. Its time to blow it up and start all over. I don’t want to know what’s legal. I want to know what is right and just, as well as legal.

    WTF is wrong with people. F–K.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 16:36:00 UTC

  • WHY PROPERTARIAN REASONING IS THE ANSWER TO MORAL ARGUMENT. “I work entirely by

    WHY PROPERTARIAN REASONING IS THE ANSWER TO MORAL ARGUMENT.

    “I work entirely by arguing with incentives. And I unload them as much as possible. We may not agree on the experience produced by any action, but the transfers produced by any action exist independently of how we react to them. And incentives are nothing more than values attached to transfers.”

    In other words ALL EMOTIONAL AND MORAL STATEMENTS AND EXPERIENCES can be reduced to statements of the transfer of property, and our differences merely different expectations over the distribution of property rights between the private and the common.

    **Propertarianism is what Praxeology should have been if it was complete.**

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 11:36:00 UTC

  • THE 150 YEAR BATTLE Hmmm… We won the battle over capitalism – property rights.

    THE 150 YEAR BATTLE

    Hmmm…

    We won the battle over capitalism – property rights.

    We’re in the middle of winning the battle over economics – a) the necessity of preserving the quality of the information system, b) the limit of credit and interest, and c) the restoration of the contract between the generations.

    We are very close to overturning a century of progressive anti-reason and anti-science.

    We have at least undermined the fantasy of universal democracy as a ‘good’.

    But we are just beginning to work on institutions and norms. And, of all of these. That will be the most difficult I think. I do not know if we can put destruction of the family by the feminists back in the bottle.

    (Which as a nerd, is what makes it an interesting problem. 🙂 )

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 03:44:00 UTC

  • ECONOMIC THINKING TRUMPS PSYCHOLOGIZING All emotions are changes in state of pro

    ECONOMIC THINKING TRUMPS PSYCHOLOGIZING

    All emotions are changes in state of property. By describing actions rather than their effects, we can clearly understand what is occurring in any interaction.

    Praxeology allows us to test incentives. But if we understand the full spectrum of what people treat as their property, we can use praxeology to understand precisely what voluntary and involuntary transfers are going on, and when emotions are used to lie in order to force an involuntary transfer.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-06 11:07:00 UTC

  • ENGLISH EXCEPTIONALISM: THE NUCLEAR FAMILY, COMMON LAW, CIVIL ASSOCIATIONS, PROT

    ENGLISH EXCEPTIONALISM: THE NUCLEAR FAMILY, COMMON LAW, CIVIL ASSOCIATIONS, PROTESTANTISM, WIDESPREAD LAND OWNERSHIP.

    Emmanuel Todd is getting mainstream attention.

    “That English, later Anglosphere, exceptionalism, is very real. That the rise of our language and culture to their current unprecedented dominance – what one commentator terms “Anglobalisation” – is based on a series of properties that are either unique to the English-speaking peoples, or shared only with a handful of kindred cultures in northwestern Europe. Among these properties are the common law, representative government, Protestantism, dispersed landownership, civil associations separate from the state and – of particular interest to these authors – the unusual nature of the family.

    “They show that the Anglosphere dispenses with the extended family structures which, in most places, have legal as well as cultural force. In many societies, the peasant family has traditionally been treated as a kind of collective landowner, within which there are reciprocal responsibilities. Children, even in adulthood, have been expected to work on the family plot, receiving board and lodging. Marriages are typically arranged, and daughters-in-law come under the authority of the head of their new household. Even when the law recognizes individual autonomy, custom is often slow to follow.

    “The Anglosphere scarcely resembles the Eurasian landmass in its family structures. Our notion of the family is limited and nuclear. Most English-speakers in most centuries wanted to set up home on their own, independently, with just their spouse and children – although economic circumstances did not always allow that aspiration to be fulfilled.

    “The notion that the limited family underpins Anglosphere exceptionalism – which draws heavily on the work of the French anthropologist and demographer Emmanuel Todd – is intriguing. I see the cultural difference all around me in the European Parliament. In most Continental states, your social life is largely taken up with your extended family: you have an endless stream of weddings and christenings to go to, sometimes of very distant cousins. Britons and Americans, by contrast, expect to leave their parental home in their teens, either to go to university or to work. We make friends away from home, and they become the core of our social life. Indeed, the word “friend” carries more force in English than in many European languages, in which it is bestowed quickly and generously, but often means little more than what we mean by a Facebook friend. When a Spaniard says of someone “es muy amigo mío”, he simply means that he gets on with the chap.”

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-04 16:15:00 UTC