Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Libertarians are beggars for liberty. I’ve stopped using the term liberty. I’m n

    Libertarians are beggars for liberty. I’ve stopped using the term liberty. I’m not a beggar, or a free rider. I understand now that the only method of obtaining liberty is permission, and the only means of obtaining the equivalent without permission is sovereignty; and that sovereignty in fact can only be brought into existence by sovereign peers through reciprocal insurance: a militia. Aristocracy creates sovereignty by force. Because it is undesirable by the masses of parasites who either prefer parasitism or are a dead weight upon the rest of us.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 14:01:00 UTC

  • The Economics and Ethics of Violence

    by John Dow and Eli Harman (eds: this is an example of how propertarian argument is done.)John Dow So essentially, the maximum possible taxation that we can levy without diminishing the incentive to voluntarily organise production, we should levy, so that we may construct the most powerful military possible and to maximize the likelihood of supremacy? Following on from this reasoning, shouldn’t we seek to utilize this military advantage to establish as large an empire as possible, so as we can expand taxation and further expand our military capability whilst neutralizing all threats further expanding our margin of supremacy? Eli Harman There are diminishing marginal economies of scale. At some point, they always become diseconomies. John Dow So, then the argument becomes, we must expand empire to the limit of profitability? How may we determine when we have reached this limit? Eli Harman When the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit. John Dow So, we have to pass the limit to identify it? Therefore, we must expand empire in all possible directions limited only by the observed limits of marginal profitability. Potential marginal profitability rises with the efficiency of force expenditure. Therefore, surely the polity would seek to expand its’ efficiency in the application of violence, and in doing so, expand its’ capacity to extract marginal profitability from the application of violence? John Dow If we accept the rational incentive to utilize violence and exchange for maximum marginal profitability. Why not gossip/rallying/shaming? Eli Harman Because the feminine means of coercion are not correlated to any productive measures, whereas the masculine means of coercion depend on economic production, truth, rule of law, etc… Weak and parasitic, vs. strong and productive. John Dow I was under the impression that feminine means of coercion correlate to reproductive measures. Surely we could take this form of analysis to Reproductive Markets? In a polity which prohibits rape, females regulate reproductive access. Therefore, there must be marginal profitability in reproduction. I wouldn’t consider this parasitic. How else can the establishment of monogamous sexual morality occur but by gossip? Eli Harman In a polity which prohibits rape, males can still regulate reproductive access by controlling property. And monogamy can be enforced by law (violence) among men to facilitate assortative mating according to, on the male side, relative wealth and status, and on the female side, relative youth, beauty and fertility. Gossip is not strictly necessary. John Dow Hmm interesting. So, it seems we have Three interrelated markets of exchange. Three Markets:

    1. Market for Violence,
    2. Market for Production and the
    3. Market for Reproduction.

    Reasoning:

    • The rational incentive to engage in violence exists where the potential marginal profitability of violence exists.
    • As the capacity for violence increases so does the capacity to generate profit. The Market for Violence (Conflict) establishes the appropriation of energy (profits).
    • This incentivizes individuals to confederate for the purposes of mutually expanding their capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of confederacy.
    • This also incentivizes cooperation for the production of resources and technology which expand the capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of production.
    • These observations incentivize the formation by the violent confederacy of a realm in which to establish a Market for Production (a Polity), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for violence from its’ production.
    • In order for the Polity to maintain maximum productivity and violent capacity (and therefore the maximum potential marginal profitability on violence) long-term, it requires as much reproduction as possible, which functions as eugenically as possible, to the limit of marginal profitability.
    • Therefore, the polity establishes a Market for Reproduction (Marriage), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for production and violence.
    • The violent confederacy must prohibit all actions by individuals within the polity which diminish the capacity for these markets to function to their maximum efficiency to maintain maximum profitability on their investment in establishing the polity.
    • Therefore, the violent confederacy must limit action to perfect recipriocity of marginal costs and benefits between members of the polity, so as to incentivize productive actions which contribute to the competitiveness of the polity.

    (Therefore a prohibition of any form of gossip which diminishes the capacity for these markets to function to maximum efficiency must exist… Thus a requirement for what Curt’s proposed limits to lawful speech)

  • The Economics and Ethics of Violence

    by John Dow and Eli Harman (eds: this is an example of how propertarian argument is done.)John Dow So essentially, the maximum possible taxation that we can levy without diminishing the incentive to voluntarily organise production, we should levy, so that we may construct the most powerful military possible and to maximize the likelihood of supremacy? Following on from this reasoning, shouldn’t we seek to utilize this military advantage to establish as large an empire as possible, so as we can expand taxation and further expand our military capability whilst neutralizing all threats further expanding our margin of supremacy? Eli Harman There are diminishing marginal economies of scale. At some point, they always become diseconomies. John Dow So, then the argument becomes, we must expand empire to the limit of profitability? How may we determine when we have reached this limit? Eli Harman When the marginal cost exceeds the marginal benefit. John Dow So, we have to pass the limit to identify it? Therefore, we must expand empire in all possible directions limited only by the observed limits of marginal profitability. Potential marginal profitability rises with the efficiency of force expenditure. Therefore, surely the polity would seek to expand its’ efficiency in the application of violence, and in doing so, expand its’ capacity to extract marginal profitability from the application of violence? John Dow If we accept the rational incentive to utilize violence and exchange for maximum marginal profitability. Why not gossip/rallying/shaming? Eli Harman Because the feminine means of coercion are not correlated to any productive measures, whereas the masculine means of coercion depend on economic production, truth, rule of law, etc… Weak and parasitic, vs. strong and productive. John Dow I was under the impression that feminine means of coercion correlate to reproductive measures. Surely we could take this form of analysis to Reproductive Markets? In a polity which prohibits rape, females regulate reproductive access. Therefore, there must be marginal profitability in reproduction. I wouldn’t consider this parasitic. How else can the establishment of monogamous sexual morality occur but by gossip? Eli Harman In a polity which prohibits rape, males can still regulate reproductive access by controlling property. And monogamy can be enforced by law (violence) among men to facilitate assortative mating according to, on the male side, relative wealth and status, and on the female side, relative youth, beauty and fertility. Gossip is not strictly necessary. John Dow Hmm interesting. So, it seems we have Three interrelated markets of exchange. Three Markets:

    1. Market for Violence,
    2. Market for Production and the
    3. Market for Reproduction.

    Reasoning:

    • The rational incentive to engage in violence exists where the potential marginal profitability of violence exists.
    • As the capacity for violence increases so does the capacity to generate profit. The Market for Violence (Conflict) establishes the appropriation of energy (profits).
    • This incentivizes individuals to confederate for the purposes of mutually expanding their capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of confederacy.
    • This also incentivizes cooperation for the production of resources and technology which expand the capacity for violence up to the limit of the marginal profitability of production.
    • These observations incentivize the formation by the violent confederacy of a realm in which to establish a Market for Production (a Polity), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for violence from its’ production.
    • In order for the Polity to maintain maximum productivity and violent capacity (and therefore the maximum potential marginal profitability on violence) long-term, it requires as much reproduction as possible, which functions as eugenically as possible, to the limit of marginal profitability.
    • Therefore, the polity establishes a Market for Reproduction (Marriage), so they may extract the maximum increase in the capacity for production and violence.
    • The violent confederacy must prohibit all actions by individuals within the polity which diminish the capacity for these markets to function to their maximum efficiency to maintain maximum profitability on their investment in establishing the polity.
    • Therefore, the violent confederacy must limit action to perfect recipriocity of marginal costs and benefits between members of the polity, so as to incentivize productive actions which contribute to the competitiveness of the polity.

    (Therefore a prohibition of any form of gossip which diminishes the capacity for these markets to function to maximum efficiency must exist… Thus a requirement for what Curt’s proposed limits to lawful speech)

  • I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and

    I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and natural law requires aristocracy.

    Aristocracy like violence is neither good nor bad. It is the ends that aristocracy and violence are put to that determine good or bad. As such, advocacy of markets (reciprocity/cooperation/non-aggression) merely requires aristocracy as a cost (Input).

    I remain a ‘libertarian’ in the sense that I desire liberty and freedom even if I can only obtain it through purchasing sovereignty with the promise of violence.

    But it is a condition of sovereignty for the aristocracy, liberty for the upper, freedom for the middle and working, and subsidy for the dependent classes that I am seeking to justify. And I can find no other political argument that survives tests of scale (time).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 16:27:00 UTC

  • Rights: The Outcome of a Market Exchange

    NICELY STATED —“So, I am thinking of rights not as a naturally-occurring phenomenon that the Rothbardians assert it to be, but the end result of a market exchange between those demanding privileges and those able to supply the defense of those privileges. That is why rights are not absolute (you cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater, cannot use speech to engage in a criminal conspiracy, cannot own certain classes of weapons, etc.) and it is the meeting of the demand for privileges by the citizenry and the supply of defense by the sovereign (with both sides negotiating for their interests and settling on a compromise) that is the actual right. The right is the outcome of this market exchange.”— A Friend

  • Rights: The Outcome of a Market Exchange

    NICELY STATED —“So, I am thinking of rights not as a naturally-occurring phenomenon that the Rothbardians assert it to be, but the end result of a market exchange between those demanding privileges and those able to supply the defense of those privileges. That is why rights are not absolute (you cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater, cannot use speech to engage in a criminal conspiracy, cannot own certain classes of weapons, etc.) and it is the meeting of the demand for privileges by the citizenry and the supply of defense by the sovereign (with both sides negotiating for their interests and settling on a compromise) that is the actual right. The right is the outcome of this market exchange.”— A Friend

  • The Demands of Sovereignty

    THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS, THE COMMONS AND MERE LIBERTY ***’One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.***

  • The Demands of Sovereignty

    THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS, THE COMMONS AND MERE LIBERTY ***’One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.***

  • NATURAL LAW DOESN’T JUSTIFY ARISTOCRACY – IT JUSTIFIES MARKETS – IT IS JUST THAT

    NATURAL LAW DOESN’T JUSTIFY ARISTOCRACY – IT JUSTIFIES MARKETS – IT IS JUST THAT NATURAL LAW IS ONLY POSSIBLE UNDER ARISTOCRACY

    btw: (important)

    I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality.

    The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism.

    As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale.

    Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. )

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    (h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 13:19:00 UTC

  • YOU GET AN A+. (from elsewhere) Propertarian = the reduction of social science,

    YOU GET AN A+.

    (from elsewhere)

    Propertarian = the reduction of social science, group evolutionary strategy, morality, politics, law, ethics, and cognition, to statements of the voluntary or involuntary transfer of property between consenting individuals.

    Next you will grasp that the scope of property Rothbard claims (physical intersubjective) lacking rule of law, and Hoppe’s use of rule of law, limited to the intersubjectively verifiable), cannot provide the incentives necessary to produce a sustainable voluntary polity capable of surviving competition against other polities.

    Once you have made that distinction you can come join Propertarianism:

    1) Acquisitionism (psychology)

    2) Testimonialism (epistemology)

    3) Propertarianism (ethics and morality)

    4) Evolutionary Strategy (Sociology)

    5) Market Government (Politics) (“Market Fascism for the insiders – meaning only markets”)

    6) Group Evolutionary Strategy (avoidance, competition, conflict, war)

    7) Aesthetics of Transcendence (obtaining Sovereignty through Agency)

    8) Natural Law: the logic, grammar, and rhetoric of all of the above.

    The normal path of maturity appears to be Libertarian > Anarcho Capitalist > Dark Enlightenment > Propertarianism.

    This spectrum describes hope (Libertarianisn), separatism (anarcho capitalism), hopelessness (dark enlightenment), taking responsibility (Sovereignty: Propertarianism : Natural Law of Sovereign Men.)

    Its a lot harder than memorizing a few simple phrases common in libertarianism, or mastering a few arguments as in Anarcho Capitalism. But if it was easy it wouldn’t have taken us so long to write a formal grammar of Natural Law.

    We’re waiting for you. Or at least, those who can make the journey.

    -Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 15:07:00 UTC