Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • 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?

  • Loyalty: Forgoing Opportunities.

    [L]OYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure (genetic, normative, physical, institutional, territorial) that you and others have been contributing to. The limit of opportunity. (The family, tribe, and nation)

    James: Can “loyalty” also be the assumption or even shouldering of risks or costs, without a clear or immediate return?

    Curt Doolittle: Yes

  • Loyalty: Forgoing Opportunities.

    [L]OYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure (genetic, normative, physical, institutional, territorial) that you and others have been contributing to. The limit of opportunity. (The family, tribe, and nation)

    James: Can “loyalty” also be the assumption or even shouldering of risks or costs, without a clear or immediate return?

    Curt Doolittle: Yes

  • Those Who Fear Truth – (Are Taking Discounts)

    [T]he truth may be an advantage, neutral, or disadvantage for you. But if the truth is a disadvantage, that does not mean that we need to lie to preserve that advantage. Instead, we need to determine what we have to trade to restore it. But there are two reasons that we cannot conduct a trade to restore an advantage: (a) the institutions make trade impossible (as does democracy), or (b) you seek avoiding the payment of the cost of the exchange to obtain the advantage. THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES

  • Those Who Fear Truth – (Are Taking Discounts)

    [T]he truth may be an advantage, neutral, or disadvantage for you. But if the truth is a disadvantage, that does not mean that we need to lie to preserve that advantage. Instead, we need to determine what we have to trade to restore it. But there are two reasons that we cannot conduct a trade to restore an advantage: (a) the institutions make trade impossible (as does democracy), or (b) you seek avoiding the payment of the cost of the exchange to obtain the advantage. THERE ARE NO FREE LUNCHES

  • Q&A: —“So how does one define morality in this view? What is its foundation?”-

    Q&A:

    —“So how does one define morality in this view? 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) delivered 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. 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 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?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-19 15:56:00 UTC

  • OVERTURNING NAP WITH NAP/IVP AND NAP/DP NAP does not make a legal framework btw.

    OVERTURNING NAP WITH NAP/IVP AND NAP/DP

    NAP does not make a legal framework btw. And pretty much all libertarian authors have stated so.

    Rothbardian Low trust (Ghetto) Ethics: Non aggression against intersubjectively verifiable property. (permits blackmail etc), does not preserve the incentive for cooperation.

    Aristocratic High trust (warrior) Ethics: Non aggression against property-en-toto, for the total preservation of cooperation.

    NAP/IVP (Rothbardian Ghetto Ethics) are insufficient incentive for the establishment or maintenance of a voluntary polity since the transaction costs alone are sufficient to drive demand for authoritarianism as a means of suppressing retaliation.

    NAP/Property-en-toto (Aristocratic Warrior Ethics) provide sufficient incentive to eliminate demand for authority since the scope of law is sufficient to provide a means of dispute resolution (retaliation) regardless of method or scope.

    The problem we face in constructing a voluntary polity is that the law must provide sufficient suppression of parasitism (aggression against that which others have expended resources to obtain) such that there is no incentive to demand the state as a means of dispute resolution.

    Rothbard’s NAP/IVP is an insufficient basis for law and cannot produce an anarchic polity(civil society), while AHT/PT is a sufficient basis for law and can produce an anarchic polity (civil society).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-15 01:13:00 UTC

  • YES, BUT **WHICH** NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE? Non Aggression, or the Non Aggressi

    YES, BUT **WHICH** NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE?

    Non Aggression, or the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), is an incomplete concept, and possibly an intentionally incomplete concept, and alone it is an untestable and therefore unscientific) statement. Without stating what one is prohibited from aggressing against, non aggression is a half truth, using a half statement, that hacks western altruism. Its an act of deception by suggestion.

    The question is the possibility of constructing an anarchic polity using the prohibition on aggression.

    But aggression against what?

    A) Rothbardian Non-aggression against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property

    –VS–

    B) Aristocratic Non-aggression against Demonstrated Property En Toto?

    The only means of providing an anarchic polity that is preferable to a non-anarchic polity, is by aristocratic ethics. Otherwise a low trust environment with high transaction costs is not preferable – and particularly not preferable to those with expensive capital to protect, and complex production to engage in.

    The NAP hacks western altruism by prohibiting aggression, which the westerner intuits as true, but only against intersubjectively verifiable property, which once understood, the westerner rightly deems immoral and irrational.

    Blackmail is the canary in the ideological coal mine. Blackmail causes retaliation because it imposes an unwanted and unnecessary cost, and breaks the contract for cooperation.

    Rothbard’s ethics produce ghettos, Mafias, and create demand for authority.

    The only reason to advance ghetto ethics is to justify parasitism and attempt to outlaw retaliation.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-15 00:42:00 UTC

  • Property is not a moral or legal absolute, but imposition of costs *is*. #nrx #t

    Property is not a moral or legal absolute, but imposition of costs *is*. #nrx #tlot #tcot http://www.propertarianism.com/ufD3Z

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 12:03:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629623808912138240

  • Property Is Not An Absolute. But The Imposition Of Costs Is.

    (important concept) (learning propertariansm) [T]he informational content of Property Rights is less than the informational content of the Prohibition on the Imposition of Costs Upon the Property-en-toto of Others.

    Property Rights are not an epistemological or decidable absolute in Propertarianism, but the positive assertion of the negative prohibition of the imposition of costs. One possesses rights to restitution for violations of property en toto not to the property itself, which one need no ‘right’ to – one need only acquire it without imposing costs upon others that both generate the demand to retaliate, and that violates the incentive to cooperate, and therefore is merely a moral consideration. So: – property exists prior to cooperation, – morality preserves cooperation, by prohibitions and positive assertions (advice) – law records both positive morality and negative on immorality – law records positive property rights and methods of restitution (or punishment). Property is not an absolute. The imposition of costs is. Property rights are constrained by the reality of temporal existence, and the prohibition on the imposition of costs upon others. The model is that if your store of grain exists during an era of crisis, that you may not use the opportunity to either determine who lives or dies, or to profit from suffering of others. It means that one sells the grain to them at prices that prevent your loss (an imposition of costs upon you). It means that in the example of the value of water in a desert, you will ensure that the sale of water to a dying man is not an imposition of costs, but not a means of increasing profits. It means that if he lacks the money to pay, that you must give him water now, as long as he commits to paying, and that you are due damages from him if you must collect. Profit from suffering violates the principle of productive exchange and the avoidance of retaliation. This fact amounts to a ‘shall-issue service to my kith and kin’, and that I shall seek profit only from mutually productive exchange, and not that I shall maximize profits in all circumstances. It means that one does not take opportunistic profits from the suffering of others without alternative. This fact separates the aristocracy of Propertarianism from the Libertinism of cosmopolitan libertarianism. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)