Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • PSYCHOHISTORY vs NATURAL LAW and HUMAN LAW (reposted for archival purposes) Natu

    PSYCHOHISTORY vs NATURAL LAW and HUMAN LAW

    (reposted for archival purposes)

    Natural Law is that which is necessary for cooperation.

    But there are other Human Laws of behavior. Whether we categorize these as natural laws as well is a matter of demarcation for the purpose of clarity.

    I tend to avoid all psychologism, and I see psychohistory as damaged by freudianism.

    But the concept that there are regular laws or cycles to human behavior seems a fertile ground for Human Laws.

    I believe all these human laws can be expressed as property, acquisition, defense, and retaliation, and thereby escape the universalism, monopoly, and totalitarianism of freudian framing.

    As such I see the basis of what is called psychohistory as correctable and arguable as objective and distributed, rather than subjective and divergent from fallacious monopoly norms.

    When David introduced me to the subject I was only thinking in terms of incentives of each generation in the generational cycle.

    But we can combine human, cultural, generational, and technological incentives into a hierarchical set of dependencies that should at some point of precision produce a predictable (within limits) set of trends in human behavior.

    At present I think we are coalescing on the general theory that man’s behavior actually changes very little, that he adapts to incentives, and that all we have done is increase the information content of collective memory until we are able to produce general rules of action.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-14 04:35:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW UNDER UNIVERSAL STANDING CONSTITUTES A COMPETITIVE GOVERNMENT – WITH

    NATURAL LAW UNDER UNIVERSAL STANDING CONSTITUTES A COMPETITIVE GOVERNMENT – WITHOUT THE NEED FOR POLYLOGISM

    (reposted from elsewhere for archival purposes)

    As far as I know, natural law, like physical law is a monopoly – in other words, there is only one ‘true’ law that we must discover.

    So I would prefer rule of law, just as I prefer scientists to not create pseudoscience (pseudo physical law), i prefer judges not to create pseudo moral science ( pseudo-natural-law.)

    With an independent judiciary, universal standing (everyone has the right to sue in matters of commons), and rule of law (every individual is subject to the same natural law without exception), I do not see how that is not competition. Competition in the market for truth.

    Conversely, a polylegal / polylogical system is undecidable, and if not identical, then at least one of the options consists of pseudo-science, if not error, bias, wishful thinking, or deceit.

    Furthermore, the more competition under the single law the ‘harder’ it becomes (more empirically falsified).

    I would prefer a market for the production of commons, consisting of different houses representing different interests, consisting of members chosen by lot, deciding on the preferability of submitted proposals. And that any contract acceptable, strictly constructed, that survives legal scrutiny (criticism) is possible. (ie: dissent rather than assent). The question is only how budget is allocated between the houses. The choices are rather obvious. Precisely because the lower classes have behavior to trade and the upper classes money. (which is the whole issue here).

    Under this structure one can be barred from using a commons he does not wish to pay for.

    There are a host of reasons behind this construction but I’m not going to list all of them right now.

    And the subject is very deep. And I don’t have time to get into it right now (My product is taking all my time.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-06 16:12:00 UTC

  • We can no more make natural law than we can make physical law. We can only make

    We can no more make natural law than we can make physical law.

    We can only make contracts or issue commands.

    Contracts are possible by natural law.

    Commands are violations of natural law.

    Contracts demand performance, compensation, restitution.

    Commands require performance but escape compensation and permit no restitution.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-02 23:59:00 UTC

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls) [O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors. With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement. By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories. But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability. With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability. We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation: –From:– “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.” –to:– 1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation 2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation? 3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation. 4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve). This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man. So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise. A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy. Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’. A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law. A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence: Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging. And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability. That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage. But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results. So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state. And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence. All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected. If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion. Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence. The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Truth, Law of Information, Natural Law of Cooperation, Physical Law of the Universe

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls) [O]ur brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors. With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement. By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories. But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability. With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability. We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation: –From:– “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.” –to:– 1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation 2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation? 3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation. 4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve). This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man. So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise. A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy. Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information. A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’. A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law. A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence: Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging. And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability. That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage. But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results. So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state. And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence. All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected. If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion. Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence. The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • TRUTH, NATURAL LAW, PHYSICAL LAW (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume

    TRUTH, NATURAL LAW, PHYSICAL LAW

    (religion) (read it and weep) (advances on hume, damning of rawls)

    Our brains are smaller than those of our distant ancestors.

    With the evolution of language we were able to learn more by shared calculation: in the form of thinking and reasoning than we could by our own observation, memory, and judgement.

    By communicating using language thereby transferring experience, we extended our perception, could make use of other’s memories.

    But with greater perception and less individual certainty of that perception, we needed a means of judgement. Or what we call, a method of decidability.

    With greater numbers, and a greater division of perception, we required even greater tools of judgement, of choice, of decidability.

    We needed ‘theories’ of the good. And those theories evolve in parallel with the extent of our cooperation:

    –From:–

    “What is good for me?” and “What is true enough for me to act?” using the criteria “So that what I gain by the action is preferable to not doing so.”

    –to:–

    1) What is good for me : what is true enough for me to act without retaliation

    2) What is good for me and good for us : what is true enough to encourage future cooperation?

    3) What is good for me and good for us, and good for all those like us, so that we encourage cooperation of others, and do not encourage retaliation.

    4) What is good for me, and good for us, and good for all mankind, so that we TRANSCEND. (Evolve).

    This problem of decidability is the origin of our myth, religion, and philosophy – and now science. These techniques

    Just as in ethics we start with mythical inspiration, and evolve into ethical virtues, to ethical rules, to ethical outcomes, we evolve from the actions of the individual, to the ethics of cooperation, to the ethics of cooperation at scale, to the ethics of transcendence of man.

    So, to confer decidability upon all, from the young child to the old and wise, the method of decision making must be accessible for use by everyone from the young child to the old and wise.

    A religion comprises a group evolutionary strategy, wherein members are taught metaphysical, mythical, traditional, and normative methods of decidability, by means of analogy.

    Traditional law codifies this strategy in prohibitions. Why prohibitions? Because we can all equally refrain from the violation of that group evolutionary strategy, but we cannot equally contribute to the furtherance of that group evolutionary strategy. We are equal in ability to not do, but we are not equal in ability to do.

    A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful or unsuccessful in the persistence of the group – such as by being dependent upon local phenomenon that can change: the worship of the sun so logical in the agrarian era, is no longer so logical in an era of trade, or of industry, or of energy, or of information.

    A group’s evolutionary strategy can be successful but violate principle three: in that it encourages retaliation: murder, career thievery, Gypsy petty parasitism, Jewish organized and systemic parasitism, muslim invasion and raiding, Russian low trust propaganda and lying, and Chinese and European ‘Asymmetric Colonialism’.

    A groups evolutionary strategy can violate principle four by inhibiting transcendence – such as islam’s demand for respect and mandated ignorance – or a strategy can construct transcendence: Western Indo European Natural Law.

    A group’s evolutionary strategy can provide the minimum resistance to transcendence and the maximum possibility of transcendence:

    Truth telling law (Truth), Natural Law (cooperation), and physical law (correspondence), the incremental, total suppression of parasitism, under the Common Law. And genetic suppression by the incremental culling of the parasitic from the group by separation, sterilization, and hanging.

    And while we can perhaps tech these concepts to children through repetition, we cannot teach it to them as inspiration, without myth, ritual, tradition, and norm to persist it across generations, and to convey it to all those regardless of age and ability.

    That we require ‘religion’: myth, ritual and tradition, in narrative, literary form is a product of man’s intellectual evolution from innocent and ignorant child to jaded and experienced sage.

    But whether stated as religious narrative, reasoned moral argument, rational justification, strictly constructed law, ratio-scientific criticism or testimonial truth, the actions that result from the use of these forms of communication must produce correspondent results.

    So it is not the method of conveyance that we judge – since the method of argument is a measure of the speaker and the audience – but whether

    The only transcendent philosophy must be natural law of man and physical law of the universe, stated testimonially – the best that man’s words are able to state.

    And therefore the only transcendent religion is Testimonial Truth, The Natural Law of Cooperation, The Physical Law of Correspondence,

    All else is lie to obscure parasitism and predation, or it is error that not must be not tolerated, but corrected.

    If any mythological, reasonable, rational, ratio-scientific argument is incompatible with natural law, then it is merely an act of predation – an act of war – not a religion.

    Christianity and Indo European Paganism are compatible with Natural Law in the production of resulting behavior, as long as inbreeding is prohibited, tolerance for violation of natural law is limited, and the culling of the underclasses by expulsion, separation, incarceration, sterilization, and hanging is encouraged as necessary for the preservation of natural law and the achievement of transcendence.

    The Church may not preserve its dependents at the expense of natural law or at the expense of transcendence. That would be the work of the self interest of the bureaucracy of man, not the work of Truth and Transcendence.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-02 04:48:00 UTC

  • Q&A: How Does Propertarianism Address Spanking?

    [A]s an economy. “The Cost Is In The Maintenance” Testimonialism tells us that “There exist no general rules without limits”. So to say we should never spank or always do something else, is an ‘immature’ or perhaps ‘unsophisticated’ ethic. Lets look at the four properties. FIVE FACTORS 0) the category of violation: violence(physicality), crime(theft), ethics(deceit), manners(impulsivity), morals(externality), (please note the sequence). 1) time preference (long term consequences), 2) knowledge of alternatives, 3) time demands (urgent threat vs raising calmest child), 4) exhaustion and frustration levels of the parent. I suspect that merely mentioning these properties is enough for you to put it together. It’s not very complicated. DISCUSSION 1) whenever possible choose the long term consequences. The long term consequences are that harming( using violence against) your children for any reason produces long term consequences. There are times when children know they are out of line. I am not a prohibitionist. There must exist some limit. Physicality should be a limit, not a practice. Thats what the research shows and I am convinced by it. 2) it is actually just as effective in most cases to deprive a child of attention and stimulation. This is the preferred method today – in no small part because we have big enough houses. As I understand it the beneficial line of demarcation is physicality. Cursing at mother (mother must be sacred), or using physicality warrants physicality. Everything else warrants deprivation rather than physicality. Why? Because punishment gives the child attention, and your anger means he or she ‘wins’ by controlling you. In other words, if your child wants attention and can get it, then he is punishing you for not paying him enough attention. After physicality, the next standard is lying. I think most of the time lying is impulsive, and if impulsive then deprivation is enough. After lying s Premeditation. Premeditation is a very bad sign in a child (impulsivity requires only training). Premeditation is not quite as bad as killing animals, but a danger sign. Harming others or animals through premeditation means you have a candidate serial killer on your hands. This requires professional help. So if we are trying to train children to have higher time preference (escape impulsivity) then this is a matter for deprivation. If we are trying to train children out of impulsive physicality – then calm retaliation is probably warranted. If we are trying to train children out of premeditation – then it is more than a question of spanking, it is one of diagnosis of what is ‘wrong’ that is causing it. My mother used to make me stand in a corner. I merely spoke to my daughter and that was enough to change her behavior We sent my son to his bedroom. I have spanked my son once, but it did no good. I usually use a tap on the bottom and that is all it takes. But we are a gene pool and there are other gene pools. My father was excessively violent and I fucking hated him for it. Mostly because it was unnecessary. Making my mother unhappy with me was punishment enough. 3) Deprivation requires time. Contrary to popular belief, children sort of just came along through most of our history, are fairly fragile until they are seven or eight, and were exposed (killed) if unwanted, and often killed by nature if insufficiently provided and cared for. (history is full of families the majority of whose children did not survive). 4) Deprivation requires patience, and energy. Frustrated and tired parenting is very difficult. How one punishes is one of the best measures of time preference. But one’s capacity for time preference is determined by exhaustion and frustration. So people with good mental and physical condition, and who have long (low) time preference tend to be better parents than those with poor mental and physical condition, and high(short) time preference. CLOSING This is the ‘economy’ of child rearing. A child is not purchased and held as lumber or bricks, but constantly maintained like an orchard. So the cost is in the maintenance, not in the purchase. wink emoticon Cheers Curt

  • Q&A: How Does Propertarianism Address Spanking?

    [A]s an economy. “The Cost Is In The Maintenance” Testimonialism tells us that “There exist no general rules without limits”. So to say we should never spank or always do something else, is an ‘immature’ or perhaps ‘unsophisticated’ ethic. Lets look at the four properties. FIVE FACTORS 0) the category of violation: violence(physicality), crime(theft), ethics(deceit), manners(impulsivity), morals(externality), (please note the sequence). 1) time preference (long term consequences), 2) knowledge of alternatives, 3) time demands (urgent threat vs raising calmest child), 4) exhaustion and frustration levels of the parent. I suspect that merely mentioning these properties is enough for you to put it together. It’s not very complicated. DISCUSSION 1) whenever possible choose the long term consequences. The long term consequences are that harming( using violence against) your children for any reason produces long term consequences. There are times when children know they are out of line. I am not a prohibitionist. There must exist some limit. Physicality should be a limit, not a practice. Thats what the research shows and I am convinced by it. 2) it is actually just as effective in most cases to deprive a child of attention and stimulation. This is the preferred method today – in no small part because we have big enough houses. As I understand it the beneficial line of demarcation is physicality. Cursing at mother (mother must be sacred), or using physicality warrants physicality. Everything else warrants deprivation rather than physicality. Why? Because punishment gives the child attention, and your anger means he or she ‘wins’ by controlling you. In other words, if your child wants attention and can get it, then he is punishing you for not paying him enough attention. After physicality, the next standard is lying. I think most of the time lying is impulsive, and if impulsive then deprivation is enough. After lying s Premeditation. Premeditation is a very bad sign in a child (impulsivity requires only training). Premeditation is not quite as bad as killing animals, but a danger sign. Harming others or animals through premeditation means you have a candidate serial killer on your hands. This requires professional help. So if we are trying to train children to have higher time preference (escape impulsivity) then this is a matter for deprivation. If we are trying to train children out of impulsive physicality – then calm retaliation is probably warranted. If we are trying to train children out of premeditation – then it is more than a question of spanking, it is one of diagnosis of what is ‘wrong’ that is causing it. My mother used to make me stand in a corner. I merely spoke to my daughter and that was enough to change her behavior We sent my son to his bedroom. I have spanked my son once, but it did no good. I usually use a tap on the bottom and that is all it takes. But we are a gene pool and there are other gene pools. My father was excessively violent and I fucking hated him for it. Mostly because it was unnecessary. Making my mother unhappy with me was punishment enough. 3) Deprivation requires time. Contrary to popular belief, children sort of just came along through most of our history, are fairly fragile until they are seven or eight, and were exposed (killed) if unwanted, and often killed by nature if insufficiently provided and cared for. (history is full of families the majority of whose children did not survive). 4) Deprivation requires patience, and energy. Frustrated and tired parenting is very difficult. How one punishes is one of the best measures of time preference. But one’s capacity for time preference is determined by exhaustion and frustration. So people with good mental and physical condition, and who have long (low) time preference tend to be better parents than those with poor mental and physical condition, and high(short) time preference. CLOSING This is the ‘economy’ of child rearing. A child is not purchased and held as lumber or bricks, but constantly maintained like an orchard. So the cost is in the maintenance, not in the purchase. wink emoticon Cheers Curt

  • Q&A: WHAT DOES PROPERTARIANISM SAY ABOUT PEDOPHILIA? (example of contrasting pro

    Q&A: WHAT DOES PROPERTARIANISM SAY ABOUT PEDOPHILIA?

    (example of contrasting propertarian analysis with psychological analysis)

    At the risk of entering into a field of landmines:

    As far as I know, pedophilia is a developmental disorder, that like homosexuality, psychopathy, and hoarding, is incurable.

    It has a high comorbidity with other (serious) mental illnesses. I suspect that the researchers will determine that it is caused by the excitement of the dominance response in those who have mental disorders that prevent experience of the dominance response.

    In other words, pedophiles can only get excited by something they can feel dominant over, and they are basically unable to feel dominance (sexual excitement) otherwise – at least as intensely.

    While it is understandable to be aroused by beautiful teenagers(fertility). It is not however, understandable to be aroused by children(non-fertile). Even if we say that the taboo is a learned response, obsession sufficient to prevent disassociation by experience of a constant normative taboo, requires mental illness to prevent that association.

    I have only known one pedophile tangentially (someone fairly senior ex-Microsoft), and there is something ‘not right’ about these people. This individual is highly passive aggressive, with the jewish paranoia that is common in that tribe, and has various other obsessive disorders – that just happen to be useful in writing software.

    They invoke my disgust and purity responses severely enough that I intuit the desperate need to kill them. (I am a a conservative libertarian after all, with heightened responses to such things.). I have the same reaction to child abuses, and wife-beaters.

    In my work I tend to rely on the ternary set of emotions: Dominance-submission, excitement-calm, pleasure-pain.

    And on the desire to acquire in all things without an cancelling loss. So I must be able to explain a behavior using these limited ‘operations’.

    So in my view pedophilia must be a defect since the ‘behavioral economy’ produces such incentives against it, since the interests are against it, and there is no acquisitive value in the behavior whatsoever.

    In other words, using the rough math of propertarianism, I can’t find a way for this to result in an acquisition. This is the value of propertarianism over empathic psychologism: one cannot so easily be fooled by cognitive biases.

    If this sounds like a diagnosis lacking in empathy, it is. But the universe is pretty mechanical. We feel things because they correspond with the demands of the universe. We humans are expressions of physical laws. We aren’t all that special. We just have memories that we can use to predict and therefore outwit the universe’s ‘slower’ and deterministic method of progress through time. (and we are victim of faster processes).

    Curt

    ( PS: I had not included a chapter on negatives in my book. This question suggest that I should include a few such examples. So John Black thank you for giving me one to work with. )

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-27 02:57:00 UTC

  • RECIPROCITY ON MEANS = INSURANCE (NEG.) = NECESSITY ……………………….

    RECIPROCITY ON MEANS = INSURANCE (NEG.) = NECESSITY

    ……………………………………—vs—

    ……. RECIPROCITY ON ENDS = COORDINATION(POS.) = PREFERENCE

    Cooperative Reciprocity on Insurance != Coordinative Reciprocity on Goals.

    We can possess different ends, yet cooperate on means (the market).

    We can cooperate on insurance (liberty), without cooperating on coordination (production).

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-25 05:52:00 UTC