Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • know. Libertarians just try to justify free riding. They’re no different than li

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/04/27/its-up-to-rothbardians-to-demonstrate-that-they-are-not/I know. Libertarians just try to justify free riding. They’re no different than liberals except they don’t directly want to steal from you. they just want to do it indirectly. By free riding.

    Everyone fights, no one quits. If you do, then you’re a thief. It’s that simple.

    A FEW RELATED POSTS ON LIBERTARIANS AS PROGRESSIVE LIBERTINES

    WE ARE MORALLY BLIND

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/04/27/we-are-morally-blind-limited-in-our-perceptions-and-memory-and-severely-in-our-reason-the-last-thing-we-should-do-is-construct-large-risk-prone-intentionally-managed-states/

    LIBERTINE COGNITIVE BIAS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/04/27/libertarian-moral-spectrum-blindness/

    ITS UP TO ROTHBARDIANS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ARE NOT MORALLY BLIND

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/04/27/its-up-to-rothbardians-to-demonstrate-that-they-are-not/

    THE DECEPTION OF “PSYCHIC BENEFIT”

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/04/27/the-moral-deception-of-the-ethical-standard-of-psychic-benefit/

    REFORMING LIBERTARIAN ETHICS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/02/15/reforming-libertarian-ethics/

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 15:29:00 UTC

  • “Rational action is the reason for the NAP, not the other way around.”— Is it?

    –“Rational action is the reason for the NAP, not the other way around.”—

    Is it?

    Or is it the result of deception?

    Or is it the result of excuse making (rationalization)?

    Or is it the result of wishful thinking?

    Or is it the result of cognitive bias?

    Or is it the result of ignorance?

    Or is it the result of stupidity?

    Because it cannot be the result of informed and rational thinking since an observer of others, and an observer of the self, says that we and others retaliate for all impositions upon that which we have born costs to construct.

    And that the more complex our property, norms, and institutions, the less physical are our means of production, and more behavioral. And so the decreasingly physical are our means of accumulating property.

    This is why ratio-empirical ethics rather than rational ethics are necessary: to prevent deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, cognitive bias, ignorance, and stupidity.

    Because when we deceive, justify, bias, preserve ignorance, and are outright stupid, we cannot trust our reason to produce correspondent theories of action.

    It is non-rational to ask others not to retaliate against your imposition of costs upon them regardless of whether physical, normative, or institutional. Therefore the NAP cannot be the result of rational thought. It can only be the result of deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, bias, ignorance, or stupidity.

    Now we can argue that a stupid person acts rationally, but we cannot argue that we construct a general rule of human action according to the limits of the stupid people’s minds. That is illogical, since a general rule for man is logically incompatible when suitable only for a subset of man.

    Ergo The NAP(IVP) is not rational, or the result of rational action, unless one conflates ‘reasoning’ with ‘reasonable’ with ‘rational’. One may say that it is reasonable for a person of limited intelligence and rather broad ignorance to reasonably conclude the NAP is sufficient but we cannot say his actions are rational, since that would require the he investigate the limits of his reason and test them against the evidence in reality.

    WORDS MATTER. Because fuzzy language provides the incompetent mind with venues for relying upon deception, excuse making, wishful thinking, cognitive bias, ignorance, and stupidity.

    Hence why I am adamant about your misuse of language to justify your prior, rather than learning terminology that limits or eliminates your ability to justify your prior.

    THEREFORE

    0) The NA/Demonstrated-Property is sufficient for the determination of rational action because it eliminates demand for retaliation, and maximizes demand for cooperation.

    1) The NAP(IVP) is insufficient for the determination of rational action because it does not sufficiently limit demand for retaliation, and decreases the demand for cooperation (increasing transaction costs – and exporting them to the rest of the community.)

    2) The act of reasoning, and a conclusion of reasonableness are not equal to a conclusion that we call rational, nor to one that is ratio-scientific, nor to one that is warrantable as ratio-scientific-and-testimonial. It can only be the result of deceit, excuse making, wishful thinking, bias, ignorance, or stupidity.

    3) The NAP(IVP) then is not the result of rational thought but of either deceit, or justification, or a combination of wishful thinking and bias using only the process or reasoning, and a conclusion of reasonableness by the ignorant and stupid.

    4) Does any statement that the NAP(IVP) is the result of rational action would also mean that the NAP(IVP) is sufficient for rational action? Well if the NAP is not the result of rational analysis, nor is it sufficient for the determination of rational action, and at the same time one justifies the NAP as sufficient for rational action, then it’s either an error or a deception to state your original claim. Right. Ergo it is your failure to grasp all these consequences and the meaning of your own statement that leads to my criticism – just as I have said all along.

    REMAINING ISSUES

    The rest of your justification (argument) is made possible using various Errors by way of Egoistic Appeals to Intuitive Truth by misrepresenting the subjective as the objective. But I suspect I would need to delve into your use of the terms ‘fact” and “recognize” just as I have had to delve into your misuse of the term “rational”.

    The reason I believe you make this error, is that you are subconsciously conflating preference and subjective VALUE, with existence and objective TRUTH. Although I suspect I would also need to delve into that subject in order to explain it to you.

    So the net is that I believe you are an honest, but heavily cognitively biased person, punching far above your weight, because you lack the knowledge and skill to make the arguments that you proffer, and instead are merely justifying those biases and priors by searching for excuses to defend them using what amounts to pseudoscientific reasoning.

    This does not mean you are a bad person. It means that you were a successful host (useful idiot) for one of the great lies of the twentieth century. Better minds than yours were fooled. You should not feel bad. Only seek to learn why you err, and how to avoid that error in the future.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine

    (PS: This is how philosophy is done. I am very, very, very good at what I do, and I am keenly aware of it. People often mistake my sketches and brevity as the maximum capacity of my argumentative construction, but that is not the case. I cannot afford to produce every experiment in communication as a complete analytic argument, any more than a sculptor can produce every work in bronze, an architectural idea as finished building.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 06:28:00 UTC

  • QUESTION AUTHORITY, QUESTION OBEDIENCE? Well, we can also question attempts to e

    QUESTION AUTHORITY, QUESTION OBEDIENCE?

    Well, we can also question attempts to engage in parasitism by evading payment for commons.

    The question is only whether we use and benefit from that commons or not.

    And if not can we not pay for them.

    But to use a commons and not pay for it … that is merely theft.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 03:41:00 UTC

  • Close to the Final Word On Ethical Systems. (The “Deontological Fallacy” In Ethics)

    —“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

    [I]’d like to give you a different suggestion. That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions. 1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM) 2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies 3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws 4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated). So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically. My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle. So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it. ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs. “SOLID BASE” Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities). The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality. As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal. SEE: INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/ THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/ Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Close to the Final Word On Ethical Systems. (The “Deontological Fallacy” In Ethics)

    —“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

    [I]’d like to give you a different suggestion. That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions. 1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..............Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM) 2) Virtue Ethics.............(young)......................Biographies 3) Rule Ethics...............(inexperience adult)...Laws 4) Outcome Ethics........(experienced adult)....Science But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated). So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically. My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle. So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it. ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs. “SOLID BASE” Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities). The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality. As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal. SEE: INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/intentional-abuse-of-ethi…/ THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM http://www.propertarianism.com/…/the-fallacy-of-free-trade…/ Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • TO THE FINAL WORD ON ETHICAL SYSTEMS? —“My philosophical problem with conseque

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/14/intentional-abuse-of-ethical-systems-as-a-means-of-parasitism-2/CLOSE TO THE FINAL WORD ON ETHICAL SYSTEMS?

    —“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

    I’d like to give you a different suggestion.

    That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions.

    1) Pedagogical Myths…(very young)…………..Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM)

    2) Virtue Ethics………….(young)………………….Biographies

    3) Rule Ethics……………(inexperience adult)…Laws

    4) Outcome Ethics……..(experienced adult)….Science

    But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated).

    So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically.

    My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle.

    So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it.

    ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY

    So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs.

    “SOLID BASE”

    Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities).

    The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality.

    As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal.

    SEE:

    INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/14/intentional-abuse-of-ethical-systems-as-a-means-of-parasitism-2/

    THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/07/the-fallacy-of-free-trade-absolutism/

    Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 02:28:00 UTC

  • “Religion’s “warranty” is unverifiable (unobservable afterlife or reincarnation)

    —“Religion’s “warranty” is unverifiable (unobservable afterlife or reincarnation).”— Steve Pender

    Productive, Fully Informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer consisting only of externalities of the same.

    Violates the rule of warranty.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 13:50:00 UTC

  • Intentional Abuse of Ethical Systems as a Means of Parasitism

    [T]he false use of ethics as a means of deception. In childhood we require others to imitate: virtue ethics. In adulthood we require general rules to apply : rule ethics. In wisdom we require outcomes to measure : outcome ethics. Not all can achieve outcome ethics. Some are stuck in virtue. Others in rule. 1) We forgive children who obey virtue ethics because they cannot understand rules. 2) We forgive adults who obey rule ethics because they cannot understand the outcomes. 3) We rarely forgive outcome ethics, which we see as error (when a general fails) and should have relied upon conventual wisdom or morality. THE DARK SIDE There are those who practice virtue and rule ethics in order to circumvent responsibility for outcomes. Keynesianism and Rothbardianism are dark side ethics. They ignore the consequences in order to further current self interest. Lies, more lies, and many more lies. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Intentional Abuse of Ethical Systems as a Means of Parasitism

    [T]he false use of ethics as a means of deception. In childhood we require others to imitate: virtue ethics. In adulthood we require general rules to apply : rule ethics. In wisdom we require outcomes to measure : outcome ethics. Not all can achieve outcome ethics. Some are stuck in virtue. Others in rule. 1) We forgive children who obey virtue ethics because they cannot understand rules. 2) We forgive adults who obey rule ethics because they cannot understand the outcomes. 3) We rarely forgive outcome ethics, which we see as error (when a general fails) and should have relied upon conventual wisdom or morality. THE DARK SIDE There are those who practice virtue and rule ethics in order to circumvent responsibility for outcomes. Keynesianism and Rothbardianism are dark side ethics. They ignore the consequences in order to further current self interest. Lies, more lies, and many more lies. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • NAP: Asserting that Out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation

    [N]AP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation. Jewish law, culture, and religion attempt to preserve separatism so that they gain the benefits of the host’s commons production, without paying for the normative commons. Just as Gypsies do, but gypsies keep the cost low enough, and appeal to our altruism enough, that the cost of extermination is more than we are willing to pay. Jews do not limit their parasitism, and perform it largely through externality or deception, and this is why they are, over the centuries, repeatedly retaliated against: because the cost has become high enough that hosts must. This is not unknown since jewish authors discuss this problem openly.