Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Q&A: “Is The Soul Property?”

    Q&A: “Curt, What do you say about soul? And its relation to property?” – Mahmoud B. [Y]our indisputable Property is that which you act to obtain without forcing involuntary transfers upon others. Meaning: without {violence,theft, fraud, suggestion, obscurantism, omission, indirection (externality), free riding, socializing losses and privatizing commons, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war, conquest, and genocide.}

    • You may act to construct your life.
    • You may act to construct your kin.
    • You may act to construct cooperative relations.
    • You may act to construct your reputation.
    • You may act to construct private property
    • You may act to construct common physical property.
    • You may act to construct normative property (by forging opportunity)
    • You may act to construct institutional property (by bearing costs of such things as military service, jury duty, emergency services, and ‘policing’ the preservation of life and property.)

    Your soul, if you believe in such things, and act as if you believe in such things, is, like reputation, something you must constantly bear costs to maintain. As such since you have born costs for both physical and normative constructs, and have done so morally – without the imposition of costs upon others – they are by definition your property. EXISTENCE Now, the manner in which your soul may or may not exist is somewhat challenging, because it can only knowingly exist as an analogy: a form of anthropomorphization of the record of one’s actions recorded in memories of people, physical marks on reality, and the long term consequences of events in the physical world. In this sense your ‘soul’ good or ill, does persist, just as the interaction of molecule of water affects all those around it. (the theory that water has memory is a useful analogy.) So for those who wish to preserve the traditional behavior and traditional anthropomorphism in a manner that we can say may or may not be scientific, we can suggest that primitive man intuits his soul as his thoughts and actions, just as we intuit the persistence of our genes through reproduction. To take it further, we can (and we will very likely never disprove this so it’s useful for religious folk), we can work with what is called quantum mysticism. That is, that your thoughts take place in physical space and time and affect the universe around you. So even your thoughts affect the universe. The thing is, the concept of a soul (an accounting of your life) is a useful one. It seems to produce good outcomes. [Y]ou should not take this argument as terribly firm support for monotheism, but as a purely normative exercise in the economically beneficial results of providing an intuitive means of behavioral accounting in which individuals can resist cooperating with others on matters of ill intent under the correct presumption that the consequences of thought and action are kaleidic and infinite, and that one cannot be forced for any reason into immoral actions (those that impose costs upon others property.) Not all of us are above 125 in intelligence, and we require such analogies for both pedagogical purposes and for use by those who cannot grasp either rational or scientific arguments. The same is true for ethics. We need virtue (imitative), rule, and outcome based ethics, because we have young and simple, adult but not wise, and wise and experienced people in the world. We are unequal. As unequals we need unequal tools. I hope this helps you. As far as I know this argument will survive all current criticism. Existentially, your soul does exist as a record of your actions in the universe, and primitive man could not articulate such ideas. If you want to get into reincarnation then I cna’t help you. Neither can the Dali Lama. He knows it’s a great argument because it is untestable. As you may see, I am trying to provide a means of reformation to the main religions while at the same time undermining those parts of religion that are false, lies, or harmful. But I am not hostile to religion: myth and ritual. Personal religion is a good thing (having been near death at least three times myself). I hope that this answered your question. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN Obverse / Reverse. Golden Rule / Silver Rule. Act to Obta

    BOTH SIDES OF THE COIN

    Obverse / Reverse.

    Golden Rule / Silver Rule.

    Act to Obtain / Act to Defend.

    Non-Parasitism / Property Rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-30 10:20:00 UTC

  • The First Principles of Propertarian Ethics

    [M]an.

    1 – Man must acquire resources.
    2 – Man must act to acquire resources.
    3 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources.
    4 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.
    5 – Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.
    6 – Man conducts parasitism by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing,  fraud by omission, externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide.
    7 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • The First Principles of Propertarian Ethics

    [M]an.

    1 – Man must acquire resources.
    2 – Man must act to acquire resources.
    3 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources.
    4 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.
    5 – Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.
    6 – Man conducts parasitism by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing,  fraud by omission, externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide.
    7 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

  • Obverse / Reverse. Golden Rule / Silver Rule. Act to Obtain / Act to Defend. Non

    Obverse / Reverse. Golden Rule / Silver Rule. Act to Obtain / Act to Defend. Non-Parasitism / Property Rights. Cool huh? :)#NRx

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-29 14:19:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/615525027123957762

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/615315200623931392

    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/615315200623931392

  • Obverse and Reverse. Golden Rule / Silver Rule. Act to Obtain / Act to Defend. N

    Obverse and Reverse. Golden Rule / Silver Rule. Act to Obtain / Act to Defend. Non-Parasitism / Property Rights. https://twitter.com/ne0colonial/status/615315200623931392

  • THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF PROPERTARIANISM 1 – Man must acquire resources. 2 – Man

    THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF PROPERTARIANISM

    1 – Man must acquire resources.

    2 – Man must act to acquire resources.

    3 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources.

    4 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.

    5 – Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation.

    6 – Man conducts parasitism by violence, theft, fraud, fraud by obscurantism, from by moralizing, fraud by omission, externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide.

    7 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, organized ostracization in norms and commerce, when must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-29 06:43:00 UTC

  • Q: “What is Your Position on Slavery?”

    Well, I suppose I have to be impolitic here and just go with the truth.  But let me prevaricate a little bit and remind all that my job is to make amoral (non moral, non-introspective) arguments.  So I am not going to satisfy your moral intuition’s needs for confirmation in this essay.SLAVERY? [C]ooperation between relative equals is so disproportionately rewarding that it is difficult not to make use of it. Cooperation is not universally valuable, even if possible, because at some point the differences between the parties mean that there is nothing of value that they can exchange (the degree to which this is pervasive in the world is why we end up with classes and castes.) ( Cooperation is not universally possible because if there is a marginal difference in suppression of free riding (parasitism) then agreements that yield productive results are not possible. (Russia/Iran) Cooperation is not possible if the others are not capable of cooperating (Pygmys). Cooperation is sometimes undesirable if cooperation may lead to one’s eventual extermination. (this happens even if you will eventually be out-competed by what appears to be mutually beneficial cooperation.) (american indians) Cooperation is not possible if the other party is intent on your displacement, conquest, conversion, out-breeding, or extermination. (Palestinians) Paternalism (managed evolution / colonialism / rule) of those who are either not valuable to cooperate with, or not possible to cooperate with, or deadly to cooperate with can possibly provide returns if you can afford to produce them. Paternalism (managed evolution / colonialism / rule) is only preferable if in the long term, you do sufficient good and insufficient harm, that the population, once evolved, will not harm you, and will persist in trading with you, and you will obtain long term rewards from that cooperation. (India) If Paternalism (managed evolution) is not possible because the others are not capable of cooperation, or you cannot afford to evolve them, and you can ignore them, then ignoring them is the cheapest solution. If you cannot ignore them, cannot evolve them, and cannot cooperate with them, then you can conquer or exterminate them. If you cannot afford to conquer or exterminate them, then they will defeat you. Therefore; – We can exterminate those who threaten us. – We can resist conquerors and superior competitors. – We can trade with peers. – We can evolve non-peers. – We can protect (treat as pets) the non threatening. – We can ignore those who are irrelevant. The problem with slavery is that it’s very expensive to police sentient creatures whose dominance hierarchy we cannot assume leadership of. Any potential slave is of better utility in the voluntary organization of production (the market) than he is in the involuntary organization of production. It’s fairly expensive to take care of pets. (Pygmys, Primitives). But the alternative is to lose all future potential from them, and often, lose the value that they bring to existence. (Giraffe’s and Elephants). It’s fine to make pets from non-sentients as long as we don’t cause them to suffer – even if they would prefer to be independent, sometimes the alternative to being a pet is extinction (tigers). It is very hard to imagine non-threatening sentients that we cannot ignore. [S]o in this list I cannot see the wisdom of involuntary slavery, unless somehow we make the case the slavery is a less expensive alternative to extermination. (And that, I think, is a hard argument to make. Bullets are cheap after all.) Now if we were to return to agrarian poverty in the next thousand years, the economics of slavery MIGHT invert. (although that is hard to imagine). We forget that serfdom emerged out of a labor shortage, and starvation may have increased further without it as a means of the involuntary organization of production. Moreover, humans have the same problem with slavery as we do with random abuse, with domestic abuse, with animal abuse, and even with abuse of physical commons, and normative commons: in-group people who do that are dangerous to us as well. So I don’t want to see slavery (in the plantation model, not the greek model) because I understand that it leads to retaliation. If you want to raise people as pets and treat them as pets, you know, I am not so sure I have a problem with that. If you want to raise people through paternalism, I am not only ok with it, but it appears to be necessary. If you want to exterminate people, I am perfectly OK with that, as long as it’s because they are impossible to cooperate with and survive. But as far as I know, slavery doesn’t produce any end worth it’s cost. (Today). So that is an AMORAL argument fully constructed from rational incentives without appeal to introspection. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Q: “What is Your Position on Slavery?”

    Well, I suppose I have to be impolitic here and just go with the truth.  But let me prevaricate a little bit and remind all that my job is to make amoral (non moral, non-introspective) arguments.  So I am not going to satisfy your moral intuition’s needs for confirmation in this essay.SLAVERY? [C]ooperation between relative equals is so disproportionately rewarding that it is difficult not to make use of it. Cooperation is not universally valuable, even if possible, because at some point the differences between the parties mean that there is nothing of value that they can exchange (the degree to which this is pervasive in the world is why we end up with classes and castes.) ( Cooperation is not universally possible because if there is a marginal difference in suppression of free riding (parasitism) then agreements that yield productive results are not possible. (Russia/Iran) Cooperation is not possible if the others are not capable of cooperating (Pygmys). Cooperation is sometimes undesirable if cooperation may lead to one’s eventual extermination. (this happens even if you will eventually be out-competed by what appears to be mutually beneficial cooperation.) (american indians) Cooperation is not possible if the other party is intent on your displacement, conquest, conversion, out-breeding, or extermination. (Palestinians) Paternalism (managed evolution / colonialism / rule) of those who are either not valuable to cooperate with, or not possible to cooperate with, or deadly to cooperate with can possibly provide returns if you can afford to produce them. Paternalism (managed evolution / colonialism / rule) is only preferable if in the long term, you do sufficient good and insufficient harm, that the population, once evolved, will not harm you, and will persist in trading with you, and you will obtain long term rewards from that cooperation. (India) If Paternalism (managed evolution) is not possible because the others are not capable of cooperation, or you cannot afford to evolve them, and you can ignore them, then ignoring them is the cheapest solution. If you cannot ignore them, cannot evolve them, and cannot cooperate with them, then you can conquer or exterminate them. If you cannot afford to conquer or exterminate them, then they will defeat you. Therefore; – We can exterminate those who threaten us. – We can resist conquerors and superior competitors. – We can trade with peers. – We can evolve non-peers. – We can protect (treat as pets) the non threatening. – We can ignore those who are irrelevant. The problem with slavery is that it’s very expensive to police sentient creatures whose dominance hierarchy we cannot assume leadership of. Any potential slave is of better utility in the voluntary organization of production (the market) than he is in the involuntary organization of production. It’s fairly expensive to take care of pets. (Pygmys, Primitives). But the alternative is to lose all future potential from them, and often, lose the value that they bring to existence. (Giraffe’s and Elephants). It’s fine to make pets from non-sentients as long as we don’t cause them to suffer – even if they would prefer to be independent, sometimes the alternative to being a pet is extinction (tigers). It is very hard to imagine non-threatening sentients that we cannot ignore. [S]o in this list I cannot see the wisdom of involuntary slavery, unless somehow we make the case the slavery is a less expensive alternative to extermination. (And that, I think, is a hard argument to make. Bullets are cheap after all.) Now if we were to return to agrarian poverty in the next thousand years, the economics of slavery MIGHT invert. (although that is hard to imagine). We forget that serfdom emerged out of a labor shortage, and starvation may have increased further without it as a means of the involuntary organization of production. Moreover, humans have the same problem with slavery as we do with random abuse, with domestic abuse, with animal abuse, and even with abuse of physical commons, and normative commons: in-group people who do that are dangerous to us as well. So I don’t want to see slavery (in the plantation model, not the greek model) because I understand that it leads to retaliation. If you want to raise people as pets and treat them as pets, you know, I am not so sure I have a problem with that. If you want to raise people through paternalism, I am not only ok with it, but it appears to be necessary. If you want to exterminate people, I am perfectly OK with that, as long as it’s because they are impossible to cooperate with and survive. But as far as I know, slavery doesn’t produce any end worth it’s cost. (Today). So that is an AMORAL argument fully constructed from rational incentives without appeal to introspection. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • NO, ROTHBARDIANISM IS OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. PERIOD Cosmopolitan Libertarians (mea

    NO, ROTHBARDIANISM IS OBJECTIVELY IMMORAL. PERIOD

    Cosmopolitan Libertarians (meaning zero-commons advocates) do not perceive the commons as in their reproductive interests, so they reject paying for them. Mostly because they are rejects. It’s logical.

    Anglo libertarians (meaning advocates of commons free of perverse incentives), or what we call ‘small government, classical liberals’ are not rejects, and do not object to paying for commons. They object to predation, parasitism, commons that create perverse incentives.

    >>> That is called “the modern regulatory nation-state”, not “libertarians.”

    Curt Doolittle

    Actually no. Rothbardian ethics (Cosmopolitan Libertinism) circumvent not only all physical, but all normative commons consequent to intersubjectively verifiable property. As walter block and Rothbard argue, blackmail, abuse of asymmetric information, externality, and no promise of warranty are central to the libertarian ethical system. Period.

    In other words, Rothbardian ethics are the ethics of the ghetto: the low trust society of the ghetto and levant. Rothbard advanced Jewish ghetto ethics (separatism) as a substitute for anglo Saxon liberty (high trust and extensive commons). And while it is possible to use Rothbard’s ethical system for inter-state law (separatists), it is insufficient for intra-group law, since low trust increases both transaction costs and demand for authoritarian intervention to suppress retaliation for actions that invoke retaliation.

    So, no, it’s not an opinion, it’s merely fact. Rothbardian ethics are parasitic, and since they encourage parasitism, predatory, and non-rational, since demand for the state is equal to the lack of suppression (means of resolution) for impositions of costs both physical, institutional and normative.

    That’s just empirical. People retaliate. People pay high costs to retaliate.

    That’s because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding, so we evolved altruistic punishment in order to prevent disintegration of cooperation by the production of perverse incentives. This desire to retaliate on one hand and invest on the other is called our ‘moral intuitions’.

    Rothbardianism is objectively, rationally, empirically, immoral.

    Period.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-25 10:16:00 UTC