Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • SKIN IN THE GAME What is the difference between “I promise”and “i warranty”? “I

    SKIN IN THE GAME

    What is the difference between “I promise”and “i warranty”?

    “I promise” is a moral warranty. “I warranty” is a material warranty.

    Skin in the game.

    Testimonialism places skin in the game.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-21 06:08:00 UTC

  • Q&A; ON THE COMMONS. PLUS, BONUS: RESTATING MARXISM VS PROPERTARIANISM (I am tur

    Q&A; ON THE COMMONS. PLUS, BONUS: RESTATING MARXISM VS PROPERTARIANISM

    (I am turning out to be an enemy of the twentieth century’s advocacy of highly loaded easily understood, short sentences.)

    —“The mainstream econ definition of a common good is one which is rivalrous but non-excludable. So in this sense, I understand why one might consider law itself a common good, but court systems? Is demonstration sufficient to consider something a common good? I mean, wouldn’t Marxists consider everything to be common goods?”—

    –“rivalrous but non-excludable”—

    But is that demonstrably true? Is any good non-excludable?

    Instead, humans demonstrably reciprocally insure all property against some subset of:

    1) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation.

    2) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space.

    3) Usus – Use: setting up a stall.

    4) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits)

    5) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer)

    6) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.

    A park is an interesting example: we grant people Transitus, but deny all other rights.

    A common grazing ground is another interesting example: we grant transitus, fructus, but that is all.

    A monument (or a church, which is our most common monument), we grant only transitus.

    We prohibit people from denying Transitus where it imposes unnecessary burdens: property lines.

    Water is another interesting example, we deny pollution that externalizes costs. We have done the same recently with air. We probably need to do the same with the seas.

    But does any people tolerate abusus? (making land uninhabitable or unusable?) Only where land is not valuable.

    A commons is that which some group has expended effort (born costs) to inventory, and to prohibit one or more rights, the most common of which is Abusus, Mancipio and Constituo. (See Nobel Prize Winner Elanor Ostrom’s work)

    —“wouldn’t Marxists consider everything to be common goods?”—

    It is better to see marxists as preserving discretion and accrual of debt to produce a dysgenic order, and property rights advocates as eliminating discretion and replacing it with accrual of debt, to produce a eugenic order. In other words, marxists are promoting the parasitic female strategy to reverse civilization, and propertarians are promoting the productive male strategy to continue civilization.

    (This is a profound restatement of these issues)

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 07:46:00 UTC

  • Q&A: Curt, Where is a Virtue Ethics?

    Q&A: CURT, WHAT ABOUT INSPIRATION? WHERE IS VIRTUE? [W]ell, that is deceptively complex question. The problem of my (our) era, is the accumulated damage caused by the enlightenment failures on western civilization and our subsequent conquest by primitivism and primitive peoples. I’ve enumerated the reasons for this failure elsewhere repeatedly: the enfranchisement of women in particular, but also of the non-contributing classes, without adding a house for them, who have used their numbers under the error of majority rule to transform our culture of heavy investment in commons to one of exaggerated consumption of every kind of capital: genetic, familial, institutional, normative, historical, and cultural. ****So I am constructing a (negative) political philosophy out of necessary limits, not a (positive) personal philosophy for the exploration of possibilities**** I will however, address virtues and a virtue ethic, when I finish with aesthetics – and personal philosophy will be the last subject. But why last? Given this philosophical hierarchy, personal philosophy one way or another must account for all that comes before it. – Metaphysics (existence, for acting creatures) – Epistemology ( knowledge, truth and falsehood ) – Ethical and Moral Philosophy (cooperation in production) – Political Philosophy (dispute resolution and commons production) – Philosophy of War and Conquest (when cooperation and politics fail) – Aesthetics ( Excellence and Beauty ) – Personal Philosophy (achieving one’s greatest excellence) Now, to put Nietzsche and all other radicals into position, he is rebelling against the status quo, and attempting to restore our pagan aristocratic ethos of excellence – no doubt because he found it in his studies of the ancient world. I see myself doing the same. But from advocacy of institutional prohibitions (public law) rather than advocacy personal aspirations (personal religion). Or put another way, by mandate to all rather than choice of any. Now, how is mandating a prohibition on parasitism for all different from advocating unconstrained vision for some? Well, in the sense that I don’t, in propertarianism and testimonoialism, advocate in favor of ends, only in favor of means of persuing any chosen ends. So in this sense, I am trying to make it possible to be superman for the supermen, and secure dependent for the common fool who wishes it. THis is why propertarianism is ‘progressive’. It’s an innovation that increases institutional service of disparate needs and wants. So under Propertarianism, I show that you can pursue excellence (overman/superman) without regard for the material contribution, normative apporval, or status signals of the less ambitious beings – as long as you pose no costs upon those others. And if you choose some end whose means requires an imposition of those costs upon others, that is not a moral question but an immoral one by definition. If an immoral life (that violates the incentive to cooperate and therefore draws determined retaliation against you) then that is merely a choice. It is just hard to understand how it is a wise one. Or why one would look to philosophy to justify it. One does not justify immoral passions since they are outside of the moral constraint, beause they are by definition a violation of the demands of rational cooperation. I do not say one cannot act immorally. I say just the opposite. That for the strong to forgo the conquest of the weak, there must be some rational benefit to doing so. The only reason is the same one that prevented the Khan from the genocide of the Chinese: it was more profitable to govern and tax them. The same is true for the rest of us with less power at our disposal: cooperation is not only preferable, it is necessary for survival – even if that cooperation is limited to a promise to leave one another alone and therefore impose no costs upon one another. That in itself is a productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange with nothing but positive externalities. —“I’ve noticed so much of your analysis is about evolutionary strategy.”– Yes, because in the end, we need some means of commensurability and decidability between individuals and groups. While we are, by virtue of self awareness and enormous memory, capable of “enjoying or not life’s ride” we are along for the ride. If other than persistence, how do we make agreements with one another without merely saying one preys upon another? We need a means of ultimate choice: to persist. —“Where is the alienated artist? Who is he?”— Well, first, is anyone alienated? (A marxist term blaming others for one’s failings.) Lets ask it differently: Would cooperating with them produce negative externalities – like encouraging more immigration of an underclass?(Often) Are they unable to valuably cooperate with others – and therefore unneeded?(Often) Or are the ‘ostracized’ merely those who are displeasing others – and therefore undesirable? (Sometimes). Or are they merely unsatisfied with their social status(mostly)? And did they have the opportunity to attempt to find good manners, productive use and purpose? (usually in the developed world, yes.) If you mean, instead of ‘alienated’, ‘unsatisfied’ and seeking to envision the world differently from how it is (yes), then that is how artists already approach art theory. We often fail to find a means of obtaining status signals, from others, and from our own perception of success and failure. As such we are unsatisfied. And our evolutionary origins inform us of our reproductive, cooperative and productive failure. So, instead, you are asking, “Where is self status seeking, and other status seeking obtainable within Propertarianism?” And that is, that as long as he envisions a world achievable without the imposition of costs upon others who have not themselves imposed costs upon others, then the world needs him as much under propertarian ethics than under any other. Just as research results in learning what does not work, leaving only what works. Just as epistemology is learning what is false, leaving only what is a truth candidate. Just as morality is doing whatever you wish as long as it imposes no involuntary cost upon others, then all propertarianism tells us is what NOT to do, since there is no perfect man to imitate – that would be evolutionarily, scientifically, epistemologically and morally impossible. —“Defining myself in terms of macro-evolution becomes an anti-identity, as that framework is already fairly plebeian, looking for the preservation of a non-identity mass.”— That’s very German (continental) terminology. (a) “Defining Myself”, Does this mean envisioning a character (god/godlike/hero) to imitate? Why do we need something to imitate? We need it for decidability: so that we know what actions to expend resources upon and those that we should not. Otherwise we fail to concentrate our resources in the pursuit of an end. (b) “…in terms of macro-evolution..” is equally interesting terminology. How to we launder that set of terms? I think by saying “Anthropomorphizing my goals by means of a virtue ethics helps me. But why should I care about the evolutionary strategy of the group, and adapt your virtue ethics to suit it?” Conformity to arbitrary norms, signals and rituals is a matter of personal utility, just as embracing alternative norms, signals and rituals. Conformity to non-parasitism is objectively inviting retaliation or objectively avoiding it. If you wish to encourage retaliation and abandon cooperation, then there are no moral questions to be asked. Propertarianism and Testimonialism are not positive assertions, but negative assertions: prohbitions on that which is harmful to the pursuit of ANY end by ANY means while retaining the rationality of cooperation with those around you. It would be ‘groupish’ and ‘herd’ behavior if I were to recommend positive actions. Truth candidates are what remains if we eliminate falsehood, moral actions are what if we eliminate immoral action, desirable actions what we remain if we eliminate undesirable actions. The only heroism I advocate is that all men must pay to police the commons if they wish liberty. I don’t advocate what one would do with that liberty. That would be illogical, wouldn’t it? Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. THE CENTRAL QUESTION —“I realize you mean it more operationally, but it still is so devoid of life.”——“Where is the good life? That which optimized my ant farm?”——“I realize there’s an overlap between personal aristo life and its inspirational impact on society, but I don’t get the sense you emphasize it in your writing and speaking.”— Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. —“Your system is one of the best explanatory frameworks I’ve encountered, and yet it’s not a virtue ethics. It’s more: “how do we optimally engineer society.”— In the schema virtue ethics (imitation), rule ethics (deontological) and outcome based ethics (teleological / consequentialist) describe a schema from the positive and most ignorant of the world to the prohibitionary and most knowledgeable of the world. I think that history shows us many great men, all of whom can serve as virtuous characters so long as we do not violate the principles that make cooperation possible, and the liberty and prosperity that arises from cooperation. METHOD—“I know your education is in fine art, which makes me even more perplexed how dedicated you are to this “Anglo hyperempiricism.”— Well, it is more that I want to avoid the mistakes of the french, german, and ashkenazi thinkers to whom we owe anglo neo-puritanism, french devolution, german pseudorationalism, and ashkenazi pseudoscience. If an argument is inspirationally constructed then by definition it is loaded and framed. If I want to elminate the deceits of loading and framing then my approach serves that purposes, just as the operationalism of scientific literature serves that purpose. –“If I can be allowed the pretense of footing, it’s clear to me you’re a scientist, where I’m a psychologist.”— Well, I know what a scientist is, but I also know that psychology was developed as a means of deception: freud’s pseudoscientific alternative to nietzsche (whose vision he obviously feared.) Psychology as it is practiced to day can be conducted etither as the study of incentives, or the study of cognitive limitations and biases. I think you might mean, or might be better served by the term aesthete, not psychologist. —“What an irony then, that I’m actually trained in formal science and you’re trained in formal art.”— I put forth the thesis in university that there is no difference in the mode of creative expression, only in the ability to percieve each mode of creative expression. I think another means of positioning that difference is between an unscientific and non-correspondent and therefore UNCONSTRAINED vision of life, and scientific, correspondent and tehrefore CONSTRAINED vision of life. CLOSING I have not done this quite the service it deserves but at the moment it’s the best I can afford to put forward. Curt Doolittle

  • Q&A: Curt, Where is a Virtue Ethics?

    Q&A: CURT, WHAT ABOUT INSPIRATION? WHERE IS VIRTUE? [W]ell, that is deceptively complex question. The problem of my (our) era, is the accumulated damage caused by the enlightenment failures on western civilization and our subsequent conquest by primitivism and primitive peoples. I’ve enumerated the reasons for this failure elsewhere repeatedly: the enfranchisement of women in particular, but also of the non-contributing classes, without adding a house for them, who have used their numbers under the error of majority rule to transform our culture of heavy investment in commons to one of exaggerated consumption of every kind of capital: genetic, familial, institutional, normative, historical, and cultural. ****So I am constructing a (negative) political philosophy out of necessary limits, not a (positive) personal philosophy for the exploration of possibilities**** I will however, address virtues and a virtue ethic, when I finish with aesthetics – and personal philosophy will be the last subject. But why last? Given this philosophical hierarchy, personal philosophy one way or another must account for all that comes before it. – Metaphysics (existence, for acting creatures) – Epistemology ( knowledge, truth and falsehood ) – Ethical and Moral Philosophy (cooperation in production) – Political Philosophy (dispute resolution and commons production) – Philosophy of War and Conquest (when cooperation and politics fail) – Aesthetics ( Excellence and Beauty ) – Personal Philosophy (achieving one’s greatest excellence) Now, to put Nietzsche and all other radicals into position, he is rebelling against the status quo, and attempting to restore our pagan aristocratic ethos of excellence – no doubt because he found it in his studies of the ancient world. I see myself doing the same. But from advocacy of institutional prohibitions (public law) rather than advocacy personal aspirations (personal religion). Or put another way, by mandate to all rather than choice of any. Now, how is mandating a prohibition on parasitism for all different from advocating unconstrained vision for some? Well, in the sense that I don’t, in propertarianism and testimonoialism, advocate in favor of ends, only in favor of means of persuing any chosen ends. So in this sense, I am trying to make it possible to be superman for the supermen, and secure dependent for the common fool who wishes it. THis is why propertarianism is ‘progressive’. It’s an innovation that increases institutional service of disparate needs and wants. So under Propertarianism, I show that you can pursue excellence (overman/superman) without regard for the material contribution, normative apporval, or status signals of the less ambitious beings – as long as you pose no costs upon those others. And if you choose some end whose means requires an imposition of those costs upon others, that is not a moral question but an immoral one by definition. If an immoral life (that violates the incentive to cooperate and therefore draws determined retaliation against you) then that is merely a choice. It is just hard to understand how it is a wise one. Or why one would look to philosophy to justify it. One does not justify immoral passions since they are outside of the moral constraint, beause they are by definition a violation of the demands of rational cooperation. I do not say one cannot act immorally. I say just the opposite. That for the strong to forgo the conquest of the weak, there must be some rational benefit to doing so. The only reason is the same one that prevented the Khan from the genocide of the Chinese: it was more profitable to govern and tax them. The same is true for the rest of us with less power at our disposal: cooperation is not only preferable, it is necessary for survival – even if that cooperation is limited to a promise to leave one another alone and therefore impose no costs upon one another. That in itself is a productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange with nothing but positive externalities. —“I’ve noticed so much of your analysis is about evolutionary strategy.”– Yes, because in the end, we need some means of commensurability and decidability between individuals and groups. While we are, by virtue of self awareness and enormous memory, capable of “enjoying or not life’s ride” we are along for the ride. If other than persistence, how do we make agreements with one another without merely saying one preys upon another? We need a means of ultimate choice: to persist. —“Where is the alienated artist? Who is he?”— Well, first, is anyone alienated? (A marxist term blaming others for one’s failings.) Lets ask it differently: Would cooperating with them produce negative externalities – like encouraging more immigration of an underclass?(Often) Are they unable to valuably cooperate with others – and therefore unneeded?(Often) Or are the ‘ostracized’ merely those who are displeasing others – and therefore undesirable? (Sometimes). Or are they merely unsatisfied with their social status(mostly)? And did they have the opportunity to attempt to find good manners, productive use and purpose? (usually in the developed world, yes.) If you mean, instead of ‘alienated’, ‘unsatisfied’ and seeking to envision the world differently from how it is (yes), then that is how artists already approach art theory. We often fail to find a means of obtaining status signals, from others, and from our own perception of success and failure. As such we are unsatisfied. And our evolutionary origins inform us of our reproductive, cooperative and productive failure. So, instead, you are asking, “Where is self status seeking, and other status seeking obtainable within Propertarianism?” And that is, that as long as he envisions a world achievable without the imposition of costs upon others who have not themselves imposed costs upon others, then the world needs him as much under propertarian ethics than under any other. Just as research results in learning what does not work, leaving only what works. Just as epistemology is learning what is false, leaving only what is a truth candidate. Just as morality is doing whatever you wish as long as it imposes no involuntary cost upon others, then all propertarianism tells us is what NOT to do, since there is no perfect man to imitate – that would be evolutionarily, scientifically, epistemologically and morally impossible. —“Defining myself in terms of macro-evolution becomes an anti-identity, as that framework is already fairly plebeian, looking for the preservation of a non-identity mass.”— That’s very German (continental) terminology. (a) “Defining Myself”, Does this mean envisioning a character (god/godlike/hero) to imitate? Why do we need something to imitate? We need it for decidability: so that we know what actions to expend resources upon and those that we should not. Otherwise we fail to concentrate our resources in the pursuit of an end. (b) “…in terms of macro-evolution..” is equally interesting terminology. How to we launder that set of terms? I think by saying “Anthropomorphizing my goals by means of a virtue ethics helps me. But why should I care about the evolutionary strategy of the group, and adapt your virtue ethics to suit it?” Conformity to arbitrary norms, signals and rituals is a matter of personal utility, just as embracing alternative norms, signals and rituals. Conformity to non-parasitism is objectively inviting retaliation or objectively avoiding it. If you wish to encourage retaliation and abandon cooperation, then there are no moral questions to be asked. Propertarianism and Testimonialism are not positive assertions, but negative assertions: prohbitions on that which is harmful to the pursuit of ANY end by ANY means while retaining the rationality of cooperation with those around you. It would be ‘groupish’ and ‘herd’ behavior if I were to recommend positive actions. Truth candidates are what remains if we eliminate falsehood, moral actions are what if we eliminate immoral action, desirable actions what we remain if we eliminate undesirable actions. The only heroism I advocate is that all men must pay to police the commons if they wish liberty. I don’t advocate what one would do with that liberty. That would be illogical, wouldn’t it? Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. THE CENTRAL QUESTION —“I realize you mean it more operationally, but it still is so devoid of life.”——“Where is the good life? That which optimized my ant farm?”——“I realize there’s an overlap between personal aristo life and its inspirational impact on society, but I don’t get the sense you emphasize it in your writing and speaking.”— Science is prohibitionary, not ideal. —“Your system is one of the best explanatory frameworks I’ve encountered, and yet it’s not a virtue ethics. It’s more: “how do we optimally engineer society.”— In the schema virtue ethics (imitation), rule ethics (deontological) and outcome based ethics (teleological / consequentialist) describe a schema from the positive and most ignorant of the world to the prohibitionary and most knowledgeable of the world. I think that history shows us many great men, all of whom can serve as virtuous characters so long as we do not violate the principles that make cooperation possible, and the liberty and prosperity that arises from cooperation. METHOD—“I know your education is in fine art, which makes me even more perplexed how dedicated you are to this “Anglo hyperempiricism.”— Well, it is more that I want to avoid the mistakes of the french, german, and ashkenazi thinkers to whom we owe anglo neo-puritanism, french devolution, german pseudorationalism, and ashkenazi pseudoscience. If an argument is inspirationally constructed then by definition it is loaded and framed. If I want to elminate the deceits of loading and framing then my approach serves that purposes, just as the operationalism of scientific literature serves that purpose. –“If I can be allowed the pretense of footing, it’s clear to me you’re a scientist, where I’m a psychologist.”— Well, I know what a scientist is, but I also know that psychology was developed as a means of deception: freud’s pseudoscientific alternative to nietzsche (whose vision he obviously feared.) Psychology as it is practiced to day can be conducted etither as the study of incentives, or the study of cognitive limitations and biases. I think you might mean, or might be better served by the term aesthete, not psychologist. —“What an irony then, that I’m actually trained in formal science and you’re trained in formal art.”— I put forth the thesis in university that there is no difference in the mode of creative expression, only in the ability to percieve each mode of creative expression. I think another means of positioning that difference is between an unscientific and non-correspondent and therefore UNCONSTRAINED vision of life, and scientific, correspondent and tehrefore CONSTRAINED vision of life. CLOSING I have not done this quite the service it deserves but at the moment it’s the best I can afford to put forward. Curt Doolittle

  • Reviewing the Last Six Years of Progress on Propertarianism

    [M]y first draft in 2006, in retrospect, is almost embarrassing. My second draft in 2010, was fairly complete, but when I got to the section where I requried truth telling in government, I’d focused on ‘calculability’ and ‘traceabilty’ as means of preventing abuses of funds, and abuses of the law. My third draft in 2013 still had me stuck with the same problem. I had no idea at the time, that six years of work later, I would have taken that early intuition and turned it into Operationalism as a test not only of truthfulness but of existential possibility. It was another year before I made it through truth. And another year to develop the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowedge, labor and advocacy resulting in the market for commons..

    And while I was pretty sure in 2009 that the solution to government was a market, and I knew strict construction was required, I did not know the philosophical basis for it. I knew that moral intuitions were reducible to property rights, and that variations in moral intuitions reflected the property rights necessary for each reproductive bias. But from today’s vantage point I’ve come very far in the ability to articulate these ideas as necessary, and I am certainly better at communicating them, the fact of the matter is that most of what I have done is improve explanation of why such things are true and necessary. But the original understanding that the solution to the deceit of the 20th century, as the second attempt at mysticism of the west, was truth telling, and that we had to create a market for commons to accommodate the emerging heterogeneous interests of any polity with any sufficiently complex division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. I did’nt expect to end up advocating eugenic reproduction. I did not expect the racial differences to be (largely) rates of suppression of the underclasses. I did not expect to come out so strongly in favor of the family. I did not expect to demand a revolution. I viewed my work as libertarian and institutionally progressive yet it is the right that finds my work most interesting (because it proves that their intuitions are correct.) So I will finish The Politics this year, and possibly aesthetics. That means I will write up draft constitutions for various forms of propertarian political orders (honest and truthful regardless of whether collective or libertarian). A few people have asked me to address what I will call personal philosophy, even if I view my work as political and that inspiration is not my job – that’s positivist. My job is preventing deceit and error. So maybe I will do that or not. I will also deal with the DARK SUBJECTS: revolution, and war. But I do not want to do that until last. So that I think will be next year. Hopefully in time for the election.

  • Reviewing the Last Six Years of Progress on Propertarianism

    [M]y first draft in 2006, in retrospect, is almost embarrassing. My second draft in 2010, was fairly complete, but when I got to the section where I requried truth telling in government, I’d focused on ‘calculability’ and ‘traceabilty’ as means of preventing abuses of funds, and abuses of the law. My third draft in 2013 still had me stuck with the same problem. I had no idea at the time, that six years of work later, I would have taken that early intuition and turned it into Operationalism as a test not only of truthfulness but of existential possibility. It was another year before I made it through truth. And another year to develop the intertemporal division of perception, cognition, knowedge, labor and advocacy resulting in the market for commons..

    And while I was pretty sure in 2009 that the solution to government was a market, and I knew strict construction was required, I did not know the philosophical basis for it. I knew that moral intuitions were reducible to property rights, and that variations in moral intuitions reflected the property rights necessary for each reproductive bias. But from today’s vantage point I’ve come very far in the ability to articulate these ideas as necessary, and I am certainly better at communicating them, the fact of the matter is that most of what I have done is improve explanation of why such things are true and necessary. But the original understanding that the solution to the deceit of the 20th century, as the second attempt at mysticism of the west, was truth telling, and that we had to create a market for commons to accommodate the emerging heterogeneous interests of any polity with any sufficiently complex division of perception, cognition, labor and advocacy. I did’nt expect to end up advocating eugenic reproduction. I did not expect the racial differences to be (largely) rates of suppression of the underclasses. I did not expect to come out so strongly in favor of the family. I did not expect to demand a revolution. I viewed my work as libertarian and institutionally progressive yet it is the right that finds my work most interesting (because it proves that their intuitions are correct.) So I will finish The Politics this year, and possibly aesthetics. That means I will write up draft constitutions for various forms of propertarian political orders (honest and truthful regardless of whether collective or libertarian). A few people have asked me to address what I will call personal philosophy, even if I view my work as political and that inspiration is not my job – that’s positivist. My job is preventing deceit and error. So maybe I will do that or not. I will also deal with the DARK SUBJECTS: revolution, and war. But I do not want to do that until last. So that I think will be next year. Hopefully in time for the election.

  • Q&A: DOOLITTLE: CAN TWO SETS OF MORALS BE “RIGHT”? (from reddit) USER STRAY ASKS

    Q&A: DOOLITTLE: CAN TWO SETS OF MORALS BE “RIGHT”?

    (from reddit)

    USER STRAY ASKS

    —“So is it possible for two distinct sets of morals to be “right”?—

    USER CHUCK REPLIES

    —“Well according to Curt, probably no, because he says that morality is absolute. But (and this is probably what you mean) two distinct strategies (to use his language) could both be “right”, i.e. “moral”. However one might be more “moral” than the other, depending on its ability to promote the end. For example. As such, we can measure whether some cultures are more moral than others, by measuring the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding) that is suppressed by law and norm. Ultimately I could be wrong about all of this. It would be best for someone who knows Curt’s work better to explain it, perhaps even Curt himself.”—

    CURT REPLIES

    I think you’ve done a great job really. I can add minor clarity.

    1) We may prefer different ends, but we can still cooperate voluntarily upon means. Then we discover at the conclusion which was right or not. This is the secret of the market. My work on politics is to create a market for commons (goods that cannot be privatized) rather than the monopoly means of production of commons we have under democracy. This lets us produce commons that compete if we want, but cooperate on their production. (In Seattle the train vs monorail debate was nonsense: do both.)

    2) our individual and group strategies may consist of a combination of objectively moral and immoral preferences. within group these differences are resolvable by contractual means. Across group they are resolvable by objective means.

    3) if we are not engaging in cooperation then morality has no meaning, since morality is merely the necessity of preservation of cooperation. In other words, when we resort to preying upon one another we have abandoned morality. In practice humans rarely do this. We actually engage in punishment in an attempt to restore cooperation.

    Mobs are scary things. Outliers are scary things. That is why we kill off people that make us nervous in group and out-group.

    That’s why ancapism never works. The only people for whom it is rational to join such a polity over another with greater legal coverage has historically been slavery, piracy, black marketing, or some financial equivalent. And the reason these groups dont’ exist is because we exterminate them as parasites.

    Its the same reason we punish animal cruelty. “People who do that kind of thing are f—ing dangerous to us. That kid who mows over a kitten is destined to be a serial killer.” etc. The ancap is destined to engage in parasitism. Why? well, why else would he choose a low trust legal code over a high trust legal code?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv Ukraine)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 10:25:00 UTC

  • Christian Love and Propertarianism

    [I]f you haven’t noticed, I’ve bought the love thing hook line and sinker. I tell other men I love them on a daily basis. And it’s infectious. We don’t support each other enough.

    Our culture tells us to be stalwart stoic warriors in the germanic tradition. But we no longer have normative means of obtaining positive reinforcement for our actions – thanks largely to feminists. So we have to take matters into our own hands. The red pill means not just that we love ourselves, but that we love other men. And tell them so, when they do works in our interest. Technically, Propertarianism tells us only to suppress parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). But Aristocratic Egalitarianism tells us to treat with brotherly love, all who engage in abstinence of parasitism, act as sheriff to police it, militia to defend it, and warrior to demand it. There is precious little in Propertarianism that was not in Aristocratic Christianity, Mithraism, and the initiatic brotherhood of indo European warriors that led to the construction of the Vedas. We are man’s aristocracy. Shall we abandon man to immorality? Or shall we lead him to universal love and abstinence from parasitism? Lets lead. They failed. We must take back rule. Leave them government, but take back rule. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy

  • Christian Love and Propertarianism

    [I]f you haven’t noticed, I’ve bought the love thing hook line and sinker. I tell other men I love them on a daily basis. And it’s infectious. We don’t support each other enough.

    Our culture tells us to be stalwart stoic warriors in the germanic tradition. But we no longer have normative means of obtaining positive reinforcement for our actions – thanks largely to feminists. So we have to take matters into our own hands. The red pill means not just that we love ourselves, but that we love other men. And tell them so, when they do works in our interest. Technically, Propertarianism tells us only to suppress parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). But Aristocratic Egalitarianism tells us to treat with brotherly love, all who engage in abstinence of parasitism, act as sheriff to police it, militia to defend it, and warrior to demand it. There is precious little in Propertarianism that was not in Aristocratic Christianity, Mithraism, and the initiatic brotherhood of indo European warriors that led to the construction of the Vedas. We are man’s aristocracy. Shall we abandon man to immorality? Or shall we lead him to universal love and abstinence from parasitism? Lets lead. They failed. We must take back rule. Leave them government, but take back rule. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy

  • Q&A: Curt Can You Give Me Simple Answers?

    —“So how does one define morality in this view [Propertarianism]?  What is its foundation?”— At a minimum, non-impositions of costs upon property-en-toto, and at the median a prohibition on free riding, and at the maximum the requirement for mutual insurance, thus preserving the incentive to cooperate and gain the disproportionate rewards of cooperating all along the cooperative spectrum. (This is in fact, what our moral intuitions evolved for and remain.)

    -“What is operationalism and how does it work in concrete terms?”— A testimony (or promise or description) stated as an existentially possible sequence of subjectively testable operations. Explanation: It is the equivalent of a proof in mathematics: a test that a mathematical statement can be constructed from existentially possible operations. It is the equivalent of a recipe for baking a cake (or any other repeatable operation.) The purpose of operationalism and Eprime is to ensure that the individual has laundered error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from his speech. An example would be your use of the terms ‘morality, view, foundation, what-is, ‘ and ‘concrete’ which are vague analogies sufficient for colloquial speech but both illustrate that you do not know the existentially possible terminology you could and should use if you know the existential rather than analogistic construction of those concepts. In moral speech operational tests not only force the speaker to know what he is talking about, but also, when combined with full accounting, parsimony, and productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange and a prohibition on negative externalities, then it is very obvious at each operation (action) to determine if someone is acting morally or immorally. It is a tedious manner of speech (just as programming is a tedious means of instruction) however out of this tedious requirement, it becomes very hard to error, bias, wishfully present, and deceptively convey ideas. –“I find this suspicious: “The problem is that [propertarianism] really requires a course””– Why? Why do people need a course on Nietzche, Marx or Postmodernism? Don’t first year micro and macro economics, each form of mathematics, first year public choice theory, basic rhetoric, evolution, first year accounting, first year contract,.. and on and on require a course? Why is it that you think that something that has taken 2500 years to solve, by a host of minds greater than mine, should be somehow trivial to convey? I’m a pretty smart guy and I spent two entire years on truth. Can you even tell me what ‘true’ means? So it’s non logical that this should be an easy subject. Brouwer, Bridgman, Popper, Hayek and Mises failed. Why should it be trivial?