TRUTH: WHY IS PROPERTARIANISM DIFFERENT?
Because while a number of other philosophers have come to the conclusion that all we must do is tell the truth, no other philosopher has told you how you can tell the truth: by speaking truthfully: by providing the warranty that you have performed due diligence on any speech that you place into the informational and normative commons. And by describing precisely how you can perform that due diligence.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-20 07:00:00 UTC
[M]orality is as absolute as mathematics. Everything else is not morality but competitive strategy: contractual variations upon objective morality. Just as all law is as absolute as mathematics but all legislation contractual variation (or command).
[M]orality is as absolute as mathematics. Everything else is not morality but competitive strategy: contractual variations upon objective morality. Just as all law is as absolute as mathematics but all legislation contractual variation (or command).
Outlaw religions with dual ethics – Its fraud.
Outlaw religions with laws – it’s fraud.
There is but one negative law: imposition of costs.
There is but one positive law: love.
Any other doctrine is one of warfare: power, not religion: cooperation.
The prohibition on the establishment of a religion is not the same as the extirpation of fraud.
Truth is enough.
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-17 04:35:00 UTC
MORAL RELATIVITY OR OBJECTIVITY?
In the presence of necessary operations we are left with moral absolutism, and normative deviation from morality.
Morality is as absolute as mathematics. Everything else is not morality but competitive strategy: contractual variations. Just as all law is as absolute as mathematics but all legislation contractual variation (or command).
The conflation of morality with strategy, and law with command is a long-standing problem in rational philosophy.
The law and morality are identical in content. Group Strategy and Group Contract are merely utilitarian.
Cooperation evolved after individual survival. For cooperation to be rational it must be mutually beneficial. For it to be mutually beneficial it must be (in the aggregate) non-parasitic.
We raise our children, demonstrate kin selection with kin, and we cooperate with non-kin, and we compete with those with whom we do not cooperate.
So:
Productive
Fully informed.
Warrantied.
Voluntary Transfer
Free of Negative Externality of the same criteria
equals
beneficial cooperation.
Morality is an absolute. Norms are merely tactics.
Legislation is not necessarily lawful. Norms are not necessarily moral.
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.
So not only is morality absolute, but the relative moral content of different cultures is absolute.
That this difference determines economic velocity, and economic velocity affords us greater morality (if we choose it) is the more interesting area of inquiry.
Cheers
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-16 07:43:00 UTC
[L]ibertarianism is an intellectual, empirical and analytic movement, and conservatism is a sentimental, moral, and analogistic movement.
The difference in the language of the movements has partly to do with the production cycles that conservatives (human capital and norms) and libertarians (economic production) each emphasize. We use arguments that reflect the temporal bias of our political and reproductive preferences.
Which is why I argue that political exchanges between conservatives(warriors/long term risk abatement), libertarians(investors/medium term production), and progressives (mothers/short-term consumption) are necessary in order to make use of the perceptive and cognitive differences of the division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor. Each of us is temporally spectrum biased (and in the case of progressives: spectrum blind.)
Propertarianism suggests that innovation in anglo classical liberal institutions and law are necessary under total enfranchisement – both as a means of dividing power(negative), AND to make use of all available information (positive).
There is no reason that we cannot create a market for commons just as we create a market for private consumption in goods and services. There is no reason except the existing monopoly government that the socialists put into place as a means of destroying our division of inter-temporal knowledge and labor.
So, that is the central hypothesis I work from: that while we only NEED rule of law, under the one principle of non-imposition of costs, articulated in law as positive property rights, managed by an independent judiciary, decided by a jury of one’s peers – that we also prefer and possibly need, the production of commons.
And that while we are universally governed by rule law, and only law, that we can construct markets for the production of commons. And that the ‘legislature’ then is eliminated from all of politics. No law can be created, only discovered. And that the government need only concern itself with governance of the production and maintenance of commons.
This is, I believe, the next evolution of classical liberalism, and the means of eliminating majority tyranny, and perhaps all tyranny.
Anarchy is not the answer, and we were merely useful idiots for libertine anarchists as we were for neo-conservatives, socialists and communists..
WHAT DOES THIS MEAN FOR YOU?
Well it means you have something to fight for, instead of something just to fight against.
It means that propertarianism is the first intellectual, analytic, scientific, fully rational means of arguing our ancient, unique, high trust / rapid growth model of civilization.
It also means though, that I tend to see sentimental expression and moralizing as a regressive and damaging means of expressing our preferences. In other words, it might feel good to express your sentiments, but it doesn’t change anything except your emotional state.
So I ask you to try to learn Propertarianism by following me and Eli Harman (Eli is much easier to understand). And I ask you to be patient because it will take one year or more to swallow the “Very, Very, Very, Big Red Pill” that is Propertarianism, one bite at a time.
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
SUGGESTED TO FOLLOW OR FRIEND:
Curt Doolittle (Ukraine) – Propertarianism and Institutions.
Eli Harman (Alaska) – (How do I position Eli? Poet? New-Nietzche?)
Michael Phillip (NZ) – Philosophy of Science (Michael is a critic of unscientific thought)
Skye Stewart (Maine) – Skye pans for gold in the intellectual stream.
My site: www.propertarianism.com – I sketch work here on Facebook and post the better pieces to the site a few times a month.
The Propertarian Forum propertarianforum.wordpress.com
HBD_Chick’s blog on marriage patterns.
Any Alt-Right
Any Neo-Reaction.
Any Red Pill.
Any of the top 100 econ blogs.
EDITORS/CRITICS
Roman Skaskiw (My ‘Boss’ – What I should and should not be doing at any given moment)
Ayelam Valentine Agaliba (UK / Ghana) – Critical Rationalism / African Politics (Philosophy advisor to whom I am forever grateful)
Karl Brooks (has recently begun correcting for argumentative clarity and seems to ‘grok it’ all.)
Johannes Meixner (Grammar, sentence and sense editor)
Don Finnegan (my other boss, soul mate, who inspired me to take my work public)
And the dozens of others I haven’t mentioned but who help me every day. (You know who you are. smile emoticon )
READING LIST
I try to keep a current ‘short list’. It’s the first section at the top of the page:
http://www.propertarianism.com/reading-list/
BLOGS ETC
I read pretty much every single economist’s blog every day, every paper at SSRN that’s relevant. And some books – although I usually limit myself to empirical works in the social sciences.
Source: Curt Doolittle – FOR MY NEW FRIENDS AND FOLLOWERS: “ONE BITE AT A…
If one has to lie to compete then one has demonstrated genetic inferiority insufficient to justify both cooperation and existence.
The consequences of that statement are profound
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-11 07:55:00 UTC
(worth repeating) ( h/t: Kyle Trotta ) [I]s Propertarianism Utilitarian? First, Propertarianism consists of multiple concepts: (a) Testimonial Truth. (b) Testimonialism: The unification of morality, philosophy, law and science under testimonial truth. (c) Propertarian Ethics and Politics: a universal language of ethics and politics. (d) Testimonial Classical Liberalism: the means of constructing institutions that produce commons – (because truth and consequential trust, is the reason westerners can produce such hyper-competitive commons.) (e) Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Western Aristocratic Group Evolutionary Strategy) We (meaning the people who advise me) felt that lumping everything under the single term ‘Propertarianism’ was simply easier. It’s easier to understand one name than five or six. So when we say ‘Propertarianism’ in the narrowest sense, its the formal logic of ethics and politics. When we use it casually, in the broader sense, we refer to the use of that formal logic to create aristocratic egalitarian political orders. Now, back to “Utilitarian”. When we say something is utilitarian, we mean that the decidability of moral questions is determined by the usefulness of some outcome or other, by some criteria or other. In Propertarianism, I’ve tried to provide an AMORAL (non-moral), logically and operationally articulated, empirically derived, means of deciding moral questions: the prohibition on the imposition of costs – a prohibition that MUST exist for cooperation to remain rational. To state this prohibition in positive terms we can say we require: “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality of the same criteria.” We can further express this requirement in law, as both the logical origin of all law, and the formal expression of that law as property rights where the scope of property is defined as property-en-toto; where property-en-toto is defined as accumulated capital of all forms that people will demonstrably defend and retaliate against impositions upon (enumerated on propertarianism.com), and where that capital was obtained by the same criteria. Propertarianism then, is the legal codification of the single necessary principle of rational cooperation. With it we can create nomocracy: Rule of Law, under the one law of rational cooperation. And it applies whether we resolve interpersonal disputes, or organize to construct commons. Propertarianism is expressible as the incremental, evolutionary suppression of parasitism (free riding) in all its forms, by the most immediate means possible: the organic, evolutionary, independent, rule of law, under the one principle (law) of anti-parasitism: the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against property-en-toto. Leaving no means of sustenance available except productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality. [D]oes Propertarianism take biological influences into account? The answer is yes. Both in ethics and in politics. One of the aspects I have tried to get across is that just as the market forms an information system that by way of prices provides us with information needed to serve ourselves by the service of others – to cooperate at vast scales – that our moral biases, and moral blindnesses, and rational justifications constitute a division of inter-temporal reproductive perception, cognition, negotiation, and labor. As such, voluntary excahgen between not only males and females, but voluntary exchange between progressives(feminine bias), libertarians(production bias), and conservatives(masculine tribal bias) are the only means by which to make full use of the information perceived by all. Each inter-temporal and moral specialization must specialize to gain expertise, but compromise to with other parts of the spectrum to obtain what their bias suggests to them. As such the market for commons must be divided as were the original houses into classes, and classes into genders, to reflect the biases of the groups. This is not to say we need representative government. It is only that no matter what means we use to make decisions on the provision of commons, whether direct, representative or economic, that monopoly decision making (majority rule) is not required, only the non-imposition of costs by the participants in the agreement and those who do not wish to participate in it. To facilitate negotiation it appears that criteria for joining one house or another is extremely useful. Although I suggest this be a virtual house, not a physical one. We are no longer limited by space and time in our communications. I hope this helped Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (1) Curt Doolittle – IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE…
(worth repeating) ( h/t: Kyle Trotta ) [I]s Propertarianism Utilitarian? First, Propertarianism consists of multiple concepts: (a) Testimonial Truth. (b) Testimonialism: The unification of morality, philosophy, law and science under testimonial truth. (c) Propertarian Ethics and Politics: a universal language of ethics and politics. (d) Testimonial Classical Liberalism: the means of constructing institutions that produce commons – (because truth and consequential trust, is the reason westerners can produce such hyper-competitive commons.) (e) Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Western Aristocratic Group Evolutionary Strategy) We (meaning the people who advise me) felt that lumping everything under the single term ‘Propertarianism’ was simply easier. It’s easier to understand one name than five or six. So when we say ‘Propertarianism’ in the narrowest sense, its the formal logic of ethics and politics. When we use it casually, in the broader sense, we refer to the use of that formal logic to create aristocratic egalitarian political orders. Now, back to “Utilitarian”. When we say something is utilitarian, we mean that the decidability of moral questions is determined by the usefulness of some outcome or other, by some criteria or other. In Propertarianism, I’ve tried to provide an AMORAL (non-moral), logically and operationally articulated, empirically derived, means of deciding moral questions: the prohibition on the imposition of costs – a prohibition that MUST exist for cooperation to remain rational. To state this prohibition in positive terms we can say we require: “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality of the same criteria.” We can further express this requirement in law, as both the logical origin of all law, and the formal expression of that law as property rights where the scope of property is defined as property-en-toto; where property-en-toto is defined as accumulated capital of all forms that people will demonstrably defend and retaliate against impositions upon (enumerated on propertarianism.com), and where that capital was obtained by the same criteria. Propertarianism then, is the legal codification of the single necessary principle of rational cooperation. With it we can create nomocracy: Rule of Law, under the one law of rational cooperation. And it applies whether we resolve interpersonal disputes, or organize to construct commons. Propertarianism is expressible as the incremental, evolutionary suppression of parasitism (free riding) in all its forms, by the most immediate means possible: the organic, evolutionary, independent, rule of law, under the one principle (law) of anti-parasitism: the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against property-en-toto. Leaving no means of sustenance available except productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality. [D]oes Propertarianism take biological influences into account? The answer is yes. Both in ethics and in politics. One of the aspects I have tried to get across is that just as the market forms an information system that by way of prices provides us with information needed to serve ourselves by the service of others – to cooperate at vast scales – that our moral biases, and moral blindnesses, and rational justifications constitute a division of inter-temporal reproductive perception, cognition, negotiation, and labor. As such, voluntary excahgen between not only males and females, but voluntary exchange between progressives(feminine bias), libertarians(production bias), and conservatives(masculine tribal bias) are the only means by which to make full use of the information perceived by all. Each inter-temporal and moral specialization must specialize to gain expertise, but compromise to with other parts of the spectrum to obtain what their bias suggests to them. As such the market for commons must be divided as were the original houses into classes, and classes into genders, to reflect the biases of the groups. This is not to say we need representative government. It is only that no matter what means we use to make decisions on the provision of commons, whether direct, representative or economic, that monopoly decision making (majority rule) is not required, only the non-imposition of costs by the participants in the agreement and those who do not wish to participate in it. To facilitate negotiation it appears that criteria for joining one house or another is extremely useful. Although I suggest this be a virtual house, not a physical one. We are no longer limited by space and time in our communications. I hope this helped Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (1) Curt Doolittle – IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE…
IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE BIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES INTO ACCOUNT?
(worth repeating) ( h/t: Kyle Trotta )
1) Is Propertarianism Utilitarian?
First, Propertarianism consists of multiple concepts:
(a) Testimonial Truth.
(b) Testimonialism: The unification of morality, philosophy, law and science under testimonial truth.
(c) Propertarian Ethics and Politics: a universal language of ethics and politics.
(d) Testimonial Classical Liberalism: the means of constructing institutions that produce commons – (because truth and consequential trust, is the reason westerners can produce such hyper-competitive commons.)
(e) Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Western Aristocratic Group Evolutionary Strategy)
We (meaning the people who advise me) felt that lumping everything under the single term ‘Propertarianism’ was simply easier to understand one name, than five or six. So when we say ‘propertarianism’ in the narrowest sense, its the formal logic of ethics and politics. When we use it casually, in the broader sense, we refer to the use of that formal logic to create aristocratic egalitarian political orders.
Now, back to “Utilitarian”. When we say something is utilitarian, we mean that the decidability of moral questions is determined by the usefulness of some outcome or other, by some criteria or other.
In Propertarianism, I’ve tried to provide an AMORAL (non-moral), logically and operationally articulated, empirically derived, means of deciding moral questions: the prohibition on the imposition of costs – a prohibition that MUST exist for cooperation to remain rational.
To state this prohibition in positive terms we can say we require: “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality of the same criteria.”
We can further express this requirement in law, as both the logical origin of all law, and the formal expression of that law as property rights where the scope of property is defined as property-en-toto; where property-en-toto is defined as accumulated capital of all forms that people will demonstrably defend and retaliate against impositions upon (enumerated on propertarianism.com), and where that capital was obtained by the same criteria.
Propertarianism then, is the legal codification of the single necessary principle of rational cooperation. With it we can create nomocracy: Rule of Law, under the one law of rational cooperation. And it applies whether we resolve interpersonal disputes, or organize to construct commons.
Propertarianism is expressible as the incremental, evolutionary suppression of parasitism (free riding) in all its forms, by the most immediate means possible: the organic, evolutionary, independent, rule of law, under the one principle (law) of anti-parasitism: the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against property-en-toto. Leaving no means of sustenance available except productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.
2) Does Propertarianism take biological influences into account?
The answer is yes. Both in ethics and in politics.
One of the aspects I have tried to get across is that just as the market forms an information system that by way of prices provides us with information needed to serve ourselves by the service of others – to cooperate at vast scales – that our moral biases, and moral blindnesses, and rational justifications constitute a division of inter-temporal reproductive perception, cognition, negotiation, and labor.
As such, voluntary exchange between, not only males and females, but voluntary exchange between progressives(feminine bias), libertarians(production bias), and conservatives(masculine tribal bias) are the only means by which to make full use of the information perceived by all.
Each inter-temporal and moral specialization must specialize to gain expertise, but must also compromise with other parts of the spectrum to obtain what their bias suggests to them.
As such the market for commons must be divided as were the original houses into classes, and classes into genders, to reflect the biases of the groups. This is not to say we need representative government. It is only that no matter what means we use to make decisions on the provision of commons, whether direct, representative or economic, that monopoly decision making (majority rule) is not required, only the non-imposition of costs by the participants in the agreement and those who do not wish to participate in it.
To facilitate negotiation it appears that criteria for joining one house or another is extremely useful. Although I suggest this be a virtual house, not a physical one. We are no longer limited by space and time in our communications.
I hope this helped
Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
Source date (UTC): 2015-06-08 02:52:00 UTC