Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • vs Harm vs Cost I have no agreement with you, and therefore no constraint. I wil

    http://justification.th/Aggression vs Harm vs Cost

    I have no agreement with you, and therefore no constraint.

    I will not aggress against you.

    I will not cause you harm.

    I will not cause you to bear a cost.

    I will bear costs of reciprocal insurance.

    I will bear kin selection costs.

    Aggression leaves open unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action.

    Harm leaves open the problem of relative costs – and therefore is not an objective and sufficient means of measurement.

    Costs are universally applicable independent of scale, not relative, and prohibit criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial action of all kinds.

    —–

    The fact that so many people are fooled into the fallacy of aggression as sufficient criteria for the formation of a voluntarily organised polity, is evidence of the frailty of rationalism.

    The purpose of rationalism is justification. The purpose of scientific methods is to prevent justification.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-04 04:15:00 UTC

  • Moral Foundations as Property Rights

    (a central concept of Propertarianism) [O]f Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as individual property rights:

      And three others can be expressed as community property rights covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.

        It should be noted that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe. As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction). When I first read a paper by Jonathan Haidt, years ago now, I immediately understood the implication.  Just as the ten commandments are reducible to “There is but one law: property, and thou shalt not steal”, all our moral rules can be reduced to one: “thou shalt not steal directly or indirectly, by action or inaction.”  These rules are genetic in origin.  They are necessary and immutable.

      • Moral Foundations as Property Rights

        (a central concept of Propertarianism) [O]f Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions, three can be expressed as individual property rights:

          And three others can be expressed as community property rights covering social capital. Which obviously enough, have been, and continue to be, mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.

            It should be noted that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe. As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction). When I first read a paper by Jonathan Haidt, years ago now, I immediately understood the implication.  Just as the ten commandments are reducible to “There is but one law: property, and thou shalt not steal”, all our moral rules can be reduced to one: “thou shalt not steal directly or indirectly, by action or inaction.”  These rules are genetic in origin.  They are necessary and immutable.

          • Morals vs Property — (excerpt) Of Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuiti

            — Morals vs Property —

            (excerpt)

            Of Haidt’s evolutionary origins of moral intuitions three can be expressed as individual property rights:

            1. Care/harm for others, protecting them from harm. (The asset of life and body.)

            2. Proportionality/cheating, Justice, treating others in proportion to their actions. (The asset of goods.)

            3. Liberty/Oppression, characterizes judgments in terms of whether subjects are tyrannized. (The asset of time, opportunity.)

            And three can be expressed as community property rights covering social capital, which have been and continue to be mirrored in corporate shareholder agreements.

            4. In-Group Loyalty/In-Group Betrayal to/of your group, family, nation, polity.

            5. Respect/Authority/Subversion for tradition and legitimate authority.

            6. Purity/Sanctity/Degradation/Disgust, avoiding disgusting things, foods, actions.

            It should be noted that the male reproductive strategy among chimpanzees as well as humans evolved to kill off males in opposing groups and collect females. And that females evolved to place greater emphasis on children and females than the (fungible) tribe.

            As such the distribution of moral intuitions varies in intensity between the feminine (1-3) and the masculine (4-6). This difference in moral intuitions roughly reflects the voting pattern we have seen since the enfranchisement of women into the electorate: an increase in the use of political violence to produce an increase in the female reproductive strategy (individual dysgenic reproduction) and a decrease in the male reproductive strategy (tribal eugenic reproduction).

            Source date (UTC): 2014-09-27 03:03:00 UTC

          • CONTRA LESTER: HOPPE IS RIGHT. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO PROPERTY. (worth promo

            CONTRA LESTER: HOPPE IS RIGHT. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE TO PROPERTY.

            (worth promoting and repeating)

            Lester’s central argument is that he has stated a pre-property and pre-moral argument. He has not. He has merely constructed a top down deduction of morality out of normative usage of the term liberty, and called it “interpersonal liberty”, rather than observed and empirically documented a bottom up definition of liberty using morality. In simple words, Lester has created a verbal distinction where none exists, and claimed the verbalism as an innovation. He uses elaborate justification and overloading to obscure his tautology. And so he creates a verbal innovation only, and one that strangely enough, depends upon a contradiction in terms.

            That generations of Cosmopolitans have engaged in deception and justification, including Berlin, who have extended the technique of hermeneutic argument, derived from centuries of justifying Jewish Scripture and dual-ethical law, is precisely the behavior I have constructed propertarianism to defend against. The postmoderns, the Freudians, the pseudoscientists that intentionally took over Sociology, the marxists, the critical rationalists under Popper, the feminists, the libertine-libertarians, and even Hoppe’s german rationalism, all make use of this anti-rational, anti-modern, anti-empirical verbalism. The reason the twentieth century was plagued by every form of pseudoscience and psuedo-ratioanlism was this new verbal mysticism, constructed by cosmopolitans with the same intention that the Germans invented continental rationalism, and the french invented their continental mythos: to retain group traditions in the face of empirical innovations in science that threatened them.

            Like I have said all along. I am returning libertarianism to a foundation in testimonial truth, operational definitions, and the scientific method, to expressly defend liberty against verbal error and deception that Lester is engaged in, along with all other pseudoscientists (Mises), pseudo-rationalists (Lester and Block), and outright ideologists (Rothbard) that engage in Verbalism rather than demonstrable action.

            1) Humans must acquire and inventory, and evolved to intuit acquisitiveness.

            2) That which humans act to obtain without imposition upon in-group members they intuit as their property.

            3) The scope of those things they act or choose not to act upon constitute their demonstrated definition of property-en-toto.

            4) Emotions reflect changes in state of property-en-toto.

            5) Moral intuitions reflect prohibitions on free riding (imposed costs).

            6) Moral intuitions vary to suit one’s reproductive strategy (compatibilism but conflict)

            7) Moral rules reflect prohibitions on free riding given the structure of the family in relation to the necessary and available structure of production.

            8) Property rights are the positive enumeration in contractual form, of those moral rules which any polity agrees to enforce with the promise of violence for the purpose of restitution or punishment.

            9) Property rights are necessary as an instrumental representation of moral prohibitions because of the unobservability of changes in state. (we have no lie detectors). And as such we require an observable proxy for evidence of changes in state.

            Lester is irrelevant. He is not harmful. He is just irrelevant.

            Source date (UTC): 2014-09-22 18:02:00 UTC

          • COMPLETING MY ANALYSIS OF LESTER (FINAL WORD NECESSARY I SUSPECT) (thanks to Kar

            COMPLETING MY ANALYSIS OF LESTER (FINAL WORD NECESSARY I SUSPECT)

            (thanks to Karl for helping me with this topic)

            An individual, a gang of thugs, and members of a state, all may impose costs on you. They call may conduct criminal, unethical and immoral actions. However since it takes more than one to conspire, only a gang and a state can conspire. And since it requires a state (a territorial monopoly) to violate your liberty (freedom of interference from the state) then only state actors, by definition, can violate liberty in fact, while the gang and a group and an individual can only violate your liberty by ANALOGY. They can all engage in immoral actions, where the spectrum of immorality includes criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions.

            Why is this very technical argument necessary? Because it shows that while morality (freedom from imposed costs) evolved, and for the purpose of distinction, was divided into morality and liberty, all Lester has done is to divide Liberty into two categories: Political Liberty and Interpersonal Liberty, by constructing the NAME interpersonal liberty, (which is itself a contradiction in terms), and claiming that he has made a pre moral pre-property argument. He hasn’t. He’s just made up a new word. That doesn’t diminish that he worked backwards from political liberty to identify morality, but it does mean that his claim that he has created a pre-moral definition of liberty is false.

            History tells us that morality evolved first, and that Liberty evolved second, like rule of law, a constraint upon the government, no matter how that government was constructed, that it must perpetuate and not violate those moral rules. Religion even today constrains government to not violate moral rules – that is why conservatives are successful.

            Science tells us that (a) humans evolved to be acquisitive of many things, and changes in human gratification, are synonymous with changes in property en toto, (b) morality, and agitated punishment for moral violation, evolved as instinct against free riding and imposting costs against property en toto, of those with whom we cooperate in order to prevent parasitism, (c) property rights adjudicable under law, constitute a contractual agreement to resolve conflicts over only a subset of those forms of property needed for cooperation in the community given its division of knowledge and labor, and (d) the subset of property necessary to construct liberty (from the state) is that which prevents enough retaliation for any moral violation in the possible scope of moral violations, that will produce conflict or retaliation, and therefore demand for an authoritarian state, to either suppress retaliation or apply violence to those who violate moral rules outside of courts, and; (e) the subset that prevents demand for government is the construction of contractual institutions rather than authoritarian instructions which allow the construction of enforceable contracts for the production of commons necessary for any group to compete against any other group, as well as those commons which groups wish to prevent from consumption (parks etc).

            Lester practices “get away with it’ Truth. He’s a cosmopolitan libertine using marxist arguments and hiding behind a misrepresentation of critical rationalism – which is in itself hermeneutic and cosmopolitan. He has constructed and makes use of extant meaning, not action or necessity. As such I cannot use his work. He is the kind of fuzzy thinker that we require propertarianism, operationalism and testimonial truth to defend ourselves from – and therefore end the century of pseudoscientific and pseudo philosophical mysticism.

            I have sketched this out enough times that I have reduced the necessary argument to this little bit. It has taken me, as usual, quite a bit of effort to do so. But as far as I know, my criticism of Lester is the best extant, and he is little other than another example of the culture of critique: a cosmopolitan of libertine sentiments using marxist arguments like most libertine libertarians will be all but impossible to refute.

            So as far as I know, Lester not immoral like Rothbard, he’s just immaterial.

            I may refine this a net or two, but it’s pretty much rock solid. Like I say. I am good at what I do. It’s just an objective observation. It sounds like egoism – but the truth is it’s because I work very, very hard, and no other reason. When I construct a debate it is so that I can learn under fire. I’m an aristocratic egalitarian after all.

            Source date (UTC): 2014-09-22 16:10:00 UTC

          • WHY? I AM RABIDLY PRO-UKRAINIAN. Why? Because I am an Aristocratic Libertarian.

            WHY? I AM RABIDLY PRO-UKRAINIAN.

            Why? Because I am an Aristocratic Libertarian.

            PHILOSOPHICALLY

            (a) all people who desire them have the right to property if they will grant the same right to others.

            (b) all peoples have the right to self determination so that they may have the right to property and organize property and family according to their needs.

            (c) all people have the right to higher levels of freedom, with more atomic property rights if they so desire it.

            (d) The aristocratic EGALITARIAN contract requires that in order to secure my liberty I must fight to extend that liberty to all who desire it, and will do the same for me. That is the meaning of ‘egalitarian’ in ‘Aristocratic (meritocratic) Egalitarianism (open entry to all who desire it).”

            POLITICALLY

            (e) No government may interfere with the INDIVIDUAL fulfillment of the aristocratic egalitarian contract.

            (f) As such Aristocratic Egalitarianism’s mutual insurance of individual and political property rights constitutes a standard of moral action that supersedes all other agreements and obligations.

            (g) Therefore Aristocratic Egalitarianism must be treated with the same argumentative, political and moral status, or higher status, than that of religion.

            PRAGMATICALLY

            (h) Russians have created more brutality, murder and genocide than any race other than the Chinese, and much of it against their own people – which is even worse.

            (i) Reformation of Russia and its incorporation (as Gorbachev aspired) into the european people’s is beneficial for all white peoples. Even if it is a very high cost.

            Curt Doolittle

            The Philosophy of Aristocracy

            The Propertarian Institute

            Kiev, Ukraine.

            Source date (UTC): 2014-09-21 07:05:00 UTC

          • THE TERNARY LOGIC OF COOPERATION 1) The ternary logic of cooperation consists of

            THE TERNARY LOGIC OF COOPERATION

            1) The ternary logic of cooperation consists of three possible states: Violence(predation), Cooperation (exchange), and Avoidance (boycott); and cooperation, whether rational or pre-rational, is only beneficial if productive and non-parasitic (is absent of free riding/imposed cost). Even the advocacy of free riding, Involuntary transfer and imposed costs is an act of fraud.

            2) We have invented a series of incrementally complex logical instruments that permit us to isolate properties and make comparisons, an without which we cannot make comparisons. All forms of ‘calculation’ (in the widest sense) depend upon these

            a) Properties (identities) and Categories (sets) : Logic (description)

            b) Counting (multiples) and Naming (numbering) : Arithmetic (quantities)

            c) Measures and Ratios : Mathematics (relations)

            d) Causal Relations : Physics (causality)

            e) Forecasting (time) and Planning (acting) : The Logic of Action

            f) Cooperation : The Ternary Logic of Cooperation (production)

            The Ternary Logic of Cooperation constitutes the missing ‘logic’ of cooperation.

            Western Philosophy is first and foremost, in itself, the logic of rational action – the tools we use to rationalize action in the world. I have abandoned the attempt to restate praxeology and abandoned the term praxeology as unrecoverable, given both the ideological commitment of its adherents, the logical and empirical failure of misesian praxeology as pseudoscientific, and the absurdly primitive levantine immorality of rothbardianism. So at this point I’ve decided to go forward using the “Ternary Logic of Cooperation” and the in-group prohibition on free riding and the out-group restatement of free riding as a prohibition on imposed costs.

            Curt Doolittle

            The Philosophy of Aristocracy

            The Propertarian Institute

            Kiev Ukraine

            Source date (UTC): 2014-09-03 08:35:00 UTC

          • OF COOPERATION, NOT JUSTICE Want to thank Skye Stewart for sharing Friedman’s bo

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHTj0iccdVM&feature=youtube_gdata+-+Video+Tube+for+YouTube+-+AndroidLAW OF COOPERATION, NOT JUSTICE

            Want to thank Skye Stewart for sharing Friedman’s book and video with me. I’d originally thought it was a statement of the obvious for those of us with economic backgrounds. But for the rest of the world, the importance of the fallacy of justice as taught in law, and the importance of economic thought in replacing that fallacy, is probably as central to the reformation of political thinking as is the fact that all rights are reducible to property rights, and that rights can only be obtained in exchange.

            Curt Doolittle

            The Propertarian Institute

            Kiev, Ukraine.

            Source date (UTC): 2014-09-01 04:39:00 UTC

          • ON MORALITY (THE FINAL WORD?) GIVEN 1) The Set of all objective prohibitions on

            ON MORALITY (THE FINAL WORD?)

            GIVEN

            1) The Set of all objective prohibitions on involuntary-transfer/free-riding/imposed-costs in the spectrum criminal, unethical, immoral, conspiratorial.

            2) The Set of all normative rules that impose costs on participants for some normatively strategic purpose, enforced by inclusion or exclusion.

            3) The Set of formal laws intended to capture all of the above, and enforce by violence.

            4) The Set of all subjective categorical applications of those rules to concrete circumstances, not yet determinable as 1, 2, or 3.

            ASSERTIONS

            a) 1 is Universally true, since cooperation is irrational in the presence of parasitism.

            b) 2 is NOT universally true since under no universal set of norms are all groups equally competitive. Therefore it is advantageous for higher groups (with better abilities, norms, and institutions) to operate in libertarian ethics, and lower groups (those with worse abilities, norms and institutions) to operate under social democratic, or even despotic conditions.

            c) 3 is not universally true because law is a pragmatic organic adoption to the necessary condition of set 1, and the strategic condition of set 2.

            d) 4 is not universally true because because it is hypothetical experimentation not yet codified as law, norm, or necessity.

            EXPLANATION

            Different groups develop different evolutionary strategies that require treatment of in-group and out-group members differently. Under the Absolute nuclear family and the nuclear family the distinction between out-group and in-group members has been eradicated due to outbreeding. Communism and socialism likewise are attempts to destroy the family in an attempt to mitigate reproductive differences between Tribes, classes and families. As such this is a ‘white people’ problem since only northern european white people have abandoned the family and tribe and the rest of the world has not.

            In polities with Traditional and STEM families, there exists high demand for the state because in-group and out-group members are treated very differently. In a northern european aristocratic polity, in-group and out-group members are not treated differently – because there are no out-group members. However, external polties entering into the northern european polity demonstrate in-group vs out-group ethics and morality. This means that universalism or better stated, monopoly ethics, or perhaps ‘totalitarian ethics’, are in fact competitively disadvantageous against those who practice out-group ethics.

            The more ‘insurance’ provided by the state the more disadvantaged is universalism and libertarianism. Because not only are universalists paying into the commons with late child birth, working parents, and the nuclear and absolute family costs, but competitors do not practice these same constraints, and rates of birth and place multiplicative burden on the commons generated by those who contribute to it.

            So the northern european strategic advantage brought about by manorialism and the church’s prohibition on inbreeding reduces population growth rates, eliminates even in-family free riding, all in an effort to add capital to the commons, and to suppress underclass rates of reproduction. Meanwhile those that do not practice such abstinence are able to consume the commons thus saved.

            We can analyze each group’s reproductive(family structure), social (trust radius), and productive (economic) strategies but in the end, this is what is codified in our laws and norms. As such norms are morals unique to a given reproductive strategy for a given people, in competition with other peoples.

            Moral universalism is true in matters of dispute resolution – voluntary exchange is the only rational means of dispute resolution. Moral particularism is true in the case of fulfilling a reproductive strategy. But no moral strategy can be universal since that would deterministically eliminate some groups from participation. ergo -libertarianism is an aristocratic philosophy for a creative class, and other classes require other strategies. In the context of moral utility then these strategies are each moral within group and not across group. For cross group morality we only require property rights. However, since any and all collections of property rights whether objective and necessary or normative and strategic, require institutional support, we require different political orders to satisfy the reproductive strategies of each while cooperating via market means (voluntary exchange) at both the consumer, producer and political levels.

            Monopoly is tyranny.

            There is no optimum.

            Any optimum would produce deterministic ends.

            And that would mean some people would have to prefer losing the genetic competition.

            And that will never happen. Never has happened. Never can happen.

            Universalism is non-logical. Libertarian or otherwise.

            Instead, libertarianism forms the legal basis of the negotiation of conflicts between groups with heterogeneous wants and needs.

            As far as I know, albeit in brief form, this is the last word on morality, its scope and the argument for universalism.

            Curt Doolittle

            The Philosophy of Aristocracy

            The Propertarian Institute

            Kiev Ukraine

            Source date (UTC): 2014-08-29 09:14:00 UTC