Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM FOR SERIOUS NEWBIES The Outline of Propertarianism a

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/propertarian-posts-by-chapter/AN OVERVIEW OF PROPERTARIANISM FOR SERIOUS NEWBIES

    The Outline of Propertarianism as posts organized by chapter. This is only useful at this point to scan and get a sense of the structure of the argument. But you’re a smart guy and it might bear glancing.

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/propertarian-posts-by-chapter/

    CENTRAL ARGUMENT

    That the combination of the european civil war to contain germany was a catastrophe for the west in that it cast doubt upon the western (aristocratic) order just as the thirty years war had cast doubt upon the prior (religious) order. That the cosmopolitans started producing as the enlightenment change rolled across eastern europe. And that just as the anglos(empiricsts/Locke-Smith-Hume-Jefferson), french(moralists/Rousseau) and germans (rationalists/kant) had attempted to restate their group evolutionary strategy in modern terms, so did the jews(pseudoscience/lying) as a universal moral strategy. Women freed from labor under the industrial revolution used these arguments to reform slavery, and claim men were their enemies and oppressors.

    Once the slaves were freed, the women also demanded equal representation, and within one generation after obtaining it used ‘the great lies’ of the cosmopolitans to undermine the western order further, creating a century of pseudoscience, the destruction of the church, the destruction of the family, and the conquest of academy, state and media by women’s interests (r-selection), because women dispose of more of the earned income than do men in all these areas. Women are great consumers and it is profitable to serve them – even when they are spending down five thousand years of accumulated cultural and genetic capital. Postwar jews immigrating to the United states attacked and took over the academy and media just as they had used the pulpit in the ancient era, and the printing press in the prior era, to spread their second great lie of pseudoscience in every field of human social order.

    The reason being quite simple: consumption of the commons (predation on the weak.) Jews continued their parasitism and non-production of commons (which is why they could not hold Judea) by expanding into every field where parasitism, propaganda, pseudoscience, and deceit were possible (partly the result of denial of property). This is not a conspiracy as much as the combination of genetic superiority at verbalism, genetic bias toward the parasitic strategies and separatism, rational self interest, and cultural training duplicity provided by talmudic study and jewish history.

    So armed with this knowledge how do we reverse the century of propaganda, lies, and pseudoscience of the alliance between the jews, women and minorities, and return the west its lost confidence, and restore the civilization’s strategy of truth+commons?

    By stating in rational and scientific terms the reason for the west’s rapid success in the ancient and modern periods, despite its many disadvantages. The west practiced aristocratic egalitarianism (a form of eugenics at scale), but this strategy was never written down, only handed down.

    I’m writing it down. Forever. Truth was enough to create the west, and it is enough to restore the west.

    FOR MISES:

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/

    FOR ROTHBARD

    The Minimum Basis for Law (Nomocracy)

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/02/propertarianism-vs-rothbardiansm/

    Fallacies

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/06/20/rendering-rothbardian-fallacies-intellectually-embarrassing-and-argumentatively-impossible/

    A Lot More On Rothbard’s Low Trust Ghetto Ethics.

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/?s=ghetto+ethics

    WHY IT MATTERS

    But you can’t really understand why truthfulness, non-parasitism, and morality matter without also understanding The Secret of the West, and Testimonial Truth.

    The North Sea Peoples: Hanseatic Civilization

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/02/15/on-the-north-sea-peoples/

    A VERY SHORT COURSE IN DECIDABILITY

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/30/a-very-short-course-in-decidability/

    A SHORT COURSE IN TESTIMONIAL TRUTH

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/28/a-short-course-on-propertarianisms-testimonial-truth/

    THE DUE DILIGENCE NECESSARY FOR A WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/04/due-diligence-necessary-for-the-warranty-of-truthfulness/

    A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/

    A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN REASONING

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/09/26/a-short-course-in-propertarian-reasoning/

    THE EVOLUTION OF SUPPRESSION VIA COMMON LAW

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/10/the-evolution-of-suppression/

    1000 WORDS THAT CAPTURE IT ALL

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/05/19/the-most-profound-1000-words-you-can-read-on-political-philosophy-today/

    THE CURE FOR PROPAGANDA (LYING) AND WESTERN CIVILIZATION

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/01/18/the-cure-for-propaganda-and-western-civilization/

    THE END OF HISTORY IS NOT DEMOCRACY BUT THE TRUTHFUL CIVILIZATION

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/06/06/the-end-of-history-the-truthful-civilization-sorry-francis/

    There is much, much more online. But this is enough to keep you (or anyone else for that matter) busy for quite a while.

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-05 03:57:00 UTC

  • a) natural law doesn’t change. B) they knowingly compromised to get signatures c

    a) natural law doesn’t change. B) they knowingly compromised to get signatures c) did their method of change survive?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-02 10:22:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/683231969556205568

    Reply addressees: @AppleCiderRadio

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628820677903036420

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628820677903036420

  • Q&A: —“Curt, what are commons in the framework of propertarianism? How are the

    Q&A: —“Curt, what are commons in the framework of propertarianism? How are they constructed, and what advantages do they confer?”—

    Property: that which I bear costs to obtain without imposing cost upon that which others have born costs to obtain.

    Shareholder Property: That which I have born cost to obtain an interest in without imposing costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest, but which I may not privatize, wherein the property ownership is articulated, and non-transferrable without group permission.

    Common property: That which I have born cost to obtain an interest in without imposing costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest, but which I may not privatize, wherein the property ownership is weakly articulated and is transferrable through reproduction to one’s offspring and mates.

    Property en toto: referring to that which people demonstrate acting to obtain without imposing costs upon that which others have acted to obtain, and for which they demonstrate retaliation for imposition of costs upon. This includes but is not limited to: life, kin, mates, physical, normative, traditional, and institutional assets.

    Positive/Negative Costs: While some physical assets are purchased through direct payment (positive costs), some assets are purchased through indirect payment that we call ‘restraint’ or ‘deprivation’ or ‘forgone opportunity for consumption’ (negative costs).

    Homesteading of Opportunities produced by the commons is permissible (competition), but transfer of assets already homesteaded requires productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of imposition of costs upon the property en toto of others by externality.

    THE LOGICAL INVERSION

    As people congregate and develop normative institutions they are able to develop increasingly dense common property which in turn produces lower cost opportunities.

    “we are not wealthier than cave men, we have made all goods and services infinitely cheaper through cooperation in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor and advocacy.”

    Hence collections of people create discounts on opportunities (time) which are then open to identification (experimentation) and homesteading (transformation), into private property, which may then be consumed, inventoried, or invested in the commons.

    Getting one’s head around the fact that we improve rates of everything in time, and that we cannot know truth only falsehoods, and that we pay for commons both directly via payment or indirectly by forgone opportunities is a sort of inversion of the way we look at history. So it may seem counter intuitive at first until we grasp that time is our only existential asset and that the division of labor eliminates switching costs in exchange for increased productivity. And that the principle value of population density is the cheapness with which opportunities are constructed. And that the principle value of property rights is to reduce transaction costs in the process of production that we call cooperation in a division of labor.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-31 12:54:00 UTC

  • EXAMPLES? —Curt, can you give me some examples of immoral behaviors that would

    EXAMPLES?

    —Curt, can you give me some examples of immoral behaviors that would be permitted under rothbardianism that would be suppressed under propertarianism?—

    Great question.

    The classical example is blackmail – which while voluntary (a) is not productive, (b) incentivizes retaliation, and (c) constitutes a conspiracy against others or the commons.

    In order for cooperation to be rational it must consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of property en toto, free of imposition of costs against property en toto by externality. Blackmail is objectively immoral (a disincentive to cooperation, and a privatization – theft – of the commons of ‘cooperation’). We don’t tend to think of the stock of trust as an asset but it is one of our most influential in the production of economic velocity and therefore prosperity.

    Cheers

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-31 07:14:00 UTC

  • THE FINAL WORD ON NAP/ISV, NAP/DP (the end of the libertine as useful idiot) Rot

    THE FINAL WORD ON NAP/ISV, NAP/DP

    (the end of the libertine as useful idiot)

    Rothbardianism is an attempt to restore eastern european financial predation on the middle, working and lower classes.

    The NAP is, like most Cosmopolitan arguments – whether socialist, libertine, or neo-conservative – is a half truth (informationally incomplete) intentionally designed to require you to substitute your own information thus appealing to our ‘pathological altruism’. So the purpose is to get us to invest or risk, so that we can lose our investment yet blame ourselves.

    The Logic of the Half Truth isn’t difficult. One must have something to aggress against. So the statement NAP is a half truth.

    The ongoing debate in cosmopolitan libertinism is reducible to defining the scope of property that we insure one another from, and which we agree to retaliate for, aggression against.

    The test is Blackmail. Blackmail constitutes a voluntary exchange, but it incentivizes retaliation. This is an empirical statement (an is) not theoretical statement (should).

    The purpose of property rights (mutual insurance of each other’s property) is to incentivize cooperation and disincentivize retaliation in furtherance of productivity.

    So rothbard proposes NAP/IVP or “ghetto” property rights. Meaning “if I can get away with a deal then it was moral”, whereas “aristocratic” NAP/Demonstrated Property or western property rights by contrast “if one will not retaliate against me for this action then it was moral”.

    This is why westerners created a high trust polity where none did, and why the jews were eventually outcast (or murdered) wherever they settled.

    (This is also the source of the ‘lie’ of Crusoe’s island which is little more than an idealized ghetto: the sea functioning as the walls of the ghetto. Yet man evolved without such walls – and having to build a common defense to erect them, not by the gift of natural walls provided by the sea, or gift of unnatural walls provided by the aristocracy who constructed the cities.)

    All libertinism, all rothbardianism, is an insidious lie as great as marxism, neo conservatism, christianity, judaism, islam, and all other great lies. The purpose of this lie is to destroy our ability to construct commons, including our most important commons: trust and truth telling.

    Libertinism was designed to morally license lying and cheating. To restore the method by which the ghetto preyed upon the lower classes and to apply it to those same individuals. And well intentioned ‘useful idiots’ bought into Rothbardianism just as happily as well intentioned idiots bought into marxism-socialism-neo-puritanism-postmodernism and neo-conservatism.

    We all criticize one another without grasping that we have all been fooled. All baited. All deceived. Just as we were by christianity.

    The only source of liberty is our reciprocal warranty under pain of death that we will use violence to prevent the imposition of costs upon one another’s property, and will retaliate against the imposition of costs on one another’s property, regardless of cost.

    Roads are not the problem that we must solve. The problem is the creation of property rights in sufficient scope that we eliminate demand for the state as a preventer of theft, a prosecutor of theft, and an insurer against theft by all means possible.

    Rothbard is no better than boaz, marx, freud, keynes, or Strauss. He was just another cosmopolitan liar creating a great deceit with which to undermine our high trust civilization – the only high trust civilization ever to exist.

    There is no shame in having been fooled and playing the part of a useful idiot.

    But there is shame in seeking to defend a great lie in order to avoid admitting that one has been duped into playing the part of a useful idiot.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-30 04:39:00 UTC

  • So what if all Immigrants must (a) buy insurance that they will be financially i

    So what if all Immigrants must

    (a) buy insurance that they will be financially independent (and the insurer must return them if they fail).

    (b) take ‘the oath’ of non-theft.

    (c) cannot vote for until the fourth generation (why we should vote at all I don’t know).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-27 08:55:00 UTC

  • The Silver Rule: Cooperation. The Golden Rule: Buying Options On Cooperation

    [T]HE SILVER RULE IS THE ORIGIN OF COOPERATION THEFT The only ‘shame’ is theft. The only oath, not to lie, cheat, steal or impose harm. The summary of this ethic is: “Do not unto others as you would not want done unto you.” The anglo saxons were right and the Christians wrong. MORALITY (RULE OF COOPERATION) The silver rule is necessary for cooperation. The golden rule buys options on future cooperation – but encourages parasitism. ACQUIRE We act upon that which we have acquired without imposition of costs upon that which others have acquired by doing the same. COOPERATE We act in concert to voluntarily produce common goods and services. WARRANTY We warranty the truthfulness of our speech by due diligence in the cleansing of error, bias, imagination, wishful thinking, and deceit from our speech. INSURE We insure one another against the imposition of costs by collective suppression of free riding by collective prosecution of those who impose costs upon others. INVEST We invest in the construction of commons for the production of returns, and we deny one another the ability to impose costs upon them. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Silver Rule: Cooperation. The Golden Rule: Buying Options On Cooperation

    [T]HE SILVER RULE IS THE ORIGIN OF COOPERATION THEFT The only ‘shame’ is theft. The only oath, not to lie, cheat, steal or impose harm. The summary of this ethic is: “Do not unto others as you would not want done unto you.” The anglo saxons were right and the Christians wrong. MORALITY (RULE OF COOPERATION) The silver rule is necessary for cooperation. The golden rule buys options on future cooperation – but encourages parasitism. ACQUIRE We act upon that which we have acquired without imposition of costs upon that which others have acquired by doing the same. COOPERATE We act in concert to voluntarily produce common goods and services. WARRANTY We warranty the truthfulness of our speech by due diligence in the cleansing of error, bias, imagination, wishful thinking, and deceit from our speech. INSURE We insure one another against the imposition of costs by collective suppression of free riding by collective prosecution of those who impose costs upon others. INVEST We invest in the construction of commons for the production of returns, and we deny one another the ability to impose costs upon them. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The Principle of Exchange Makes Philosophy Much Easier

    [P]olitical Philosophy is a lot easier when you just start from the premise that all goods are hypothetical, all bads are not, and that the only means of accumulating the knowledge to determine good from bad is exchange. This eliminates the fallacy that any of us know what is in fact good for all, other than institutions that allow us to choose any possible good but prohibit us from pursuing any known bad are a de facto good by prohibiting bads. This is contrary to human cognition because we evolved for negotiating cooperation not truth telling. It is contrary to human desire, because we desire consensus. It is contrary to political incentive because it limits political power. We all think we are ‘right’. But the only ‘right’ we can know is trade. Just as the only way we know whether we engaged in production or engaged in waste, consumption, or entertainment, is if others trade for what we create. Information and volition tell us what ‘right and wrong’ do not.

  • The Principle of Exchange Makes Philosophy Much Easier

    [P]olitical Philosophy is a lot easier when you just start from the premise that all goods are hypothetical, all bads are not, and that the only means of accumulating the knowledge to determine good from bad is exchange. This eliminates the fallacy that any of us know what is in fact good for all, other than institutions that allow us to choose any possible good but prohibit us from pursuing any known bad are a de facto good by prohibiting bads. This is contrary to human cognition because we evolved for negotiating cooperation not truth telling. It is contrary to human desire, because we desire consensus. It is contrary to political incentive because it limits political power. We all think we are ‘right’. But the only ‘right’ we can know is trade. Just as the only way we know whether we engaged in production or engaged in waste, consumption, or entertainment, is if others trade for what we create. Information and volition tell us what ‘right and wrong’ do not.