Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • ON COMPREHENSION OF PROPERTARIANISM I’m trying to put my arms around who underst

    ON COMPREHENSION OF PROPERTARIANISM

    I’m trying to put my arms around who understands what, and why. Because I can test pretty clearly each individual, and I see patterns between individuals.

    LEVEL 1) POLITICS – Can you understand politics?

    (a) The informal and formal institutions of cooperation and coercion, and the ability to model changes to those institutions, and to forecast the results.

    (b) Can you distinguish the difference between personal philosophy, informal institutions and moral norms, and formal political institutions. And can you distinguish between making arguments of personal philosophy, moral norms, and political institutions?

    The problem I encounter is the inability for individuals to model all three at once, since all three do function at once in any polity.

    Eli Harman, Paul Bakhmut, and an increasing number of people who have conservative libertarian intuitions, seem to grasp these matters quickly. Although I think Eli may be a better communicator than I am.

    LEVEL 2) ETHICS – Can you understand ethics?

    The moral rules necessary for cooperation, and the ability to model changes to those rules given a heterogeneous polity whose incentives vary significantly.

    The problem I encounter is moral blindness. Moral blindness combined with the inability to model ethics, or distinguish between philosophy, informal institutions and formal institutions. Or the selective choice of one rather than all three.

    Roman Skaskiw grasps these matters immediately.

    LEVEL 3) EPISTEMOLOGY – Can you understand epistemology?

    The methods by which we ascertain the quality of our understanding of the correspondence between our ideas, our actions that result from our ideas, and the natural world.

    I seem to be able to get pretty far with a few Critical Rationalists ( Frank Lovell for example. Ayelam Valentine Agaliba clearly can manage these issues. Better than I can I think.) But even CR’s are locked into pervasive platonism. A platonism they protect with religious zeal.

    Philosophy is largely a Platonist discipline. So it’s actually pretty hard to find people with both scientific and economic backgrounds sufficient to grasp the differences between reason, exchange, and science.

    I seem to get pretty far with a few mathematical philosophers and professors who were educated before the ‘mystical’ sixties and later.

    If I can find mathematicians who have some experience with the problems of mathematical philosophy I seem to have no problem showing them the parallel of their problem in logic, ethics and science. But otherwise, epistemology is simply a pretty hard topic for most people to manage.

    We certainly have a problem in libertarianism because of jewish pseudoscientific rationals. And we have a pervasive and crippling problem of german continental platonism. We have a problem of mathematical and logical platonism in anglo analytic philosophy.

    LEVEL 4) Can you understand metaphysics?

    I cant really get very far with anyone on metaphysics. Skye Stewart is better than I am at grasping different philosophical points of view. But in general, my view of metaphysics is on of absolute Scientific Realism, just as my view of ethics is one of absolute Ethical Realism.

    This is not terribly difficult terrain for professional philosophers. But there are not a lot of professional philosophers with libertarian leanings.

    SUMMARY

    This is a ladder from the least to the most complex problems in political philsophy. And while I may engage some at the lowest level, by the time I reach the highest there are just very few people to converse with.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-17 18:51:00 UTC

  • SYNONYMS ACROSS DISCIPLINES: BUT IT’S ALL JUST THEFT Murder, violence, destructi

    SYNONYMS ACROSS DISCIPLINES: BUT IT’S ALL JUST THEFT

    Murder, violence, destruction, theft by physical appropriation, theft by fraud, theft by fraud using omission, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest – all deprive others of that which they have acted to obtain an interest in, against their will. ie: theft. the taking of that which is not obtained by voluntary exchange or first-use.

    Humans reject, universally, and punish, universally, “theft”. But when we talk about ‘theft’, each discipline uses slightly different language

    1) In legal terms resolvable under the common law, the word we use for involuntary transfer is ‘theft’. That is the most general categorical name we have available to us.

    2) Now, the PROBLEM that arises with cooperation is called ‘free riding’. The “problem of free riding’ is how it is discussed in the literature. In the context of social science, and in the context of economics, the term ‘free riding’ refers to that category of involuntary transfers (thefts).

    3) In moral philosophy we must identify first causes. I have borrowed the term ‘involuntary transfer’ from law, in which title is forcibly transferred by the state without consent of its owner. This was the most general and unloaded term I could find. (I should note that Jan Lester uses ‘forced costs” or something of that nature, for the same purpose.)

    I do not need to get into a semantic debate on normative terminology. I need only define my terms. “Free riding” is the broadest category I can use in the context of cooperation. While “involuntary transfer” is the broadest categorical term I can use in the context of moral philosophy. And “theft” is the broadest categorical term that I can use in the context of dispute resolution (law).

    However, whether talking about cooperation (free riding), morality (involuntary transfer), or dispute resolution (theft), the human action they all refer to, is that act which transfers that which one has acted to accumulate or acquire without his informed consent.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-17 03:46:00 UTC

  • TRANSNATIONAL INSURGENCIES Aristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain prope

    TRANSNATIONAL INSURGENCIES

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism, in which we obtain property rights in exchange with others, to whom we grant them, under the agreement that we will defend each other’s rights, can or cannot know boundaries. I cannot understand how it can consider boundaries.

    It should be just as easy for a dedicated minority of insurgents to influence western property rights as it has been for a dedicated minority of insurgents in other cultures to attempt to alter their allocations of property and property rights – albeit, they don’t use that conceptualization or terminology.

    Knights of just as important today as they were in the past.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-13 00:05:00 UTC

  • JUSTIFICATION VS EXPLANATION (ethics) 1) Rothbardian ethics: How to justify both

    JUSTIFICATION VS EXPLANATION

    (ethics)

    1) Rothbardian ethics: How to justify both private property, and private theft by deception and parasitism.

    2) Public Choice Theory (Social Democracy) : How to justify public theft by pseudoscience and parasitism.

    3) Hoppe’s Anarcho Capitalism : How to justify private property, and eliminate the monopoly bureaucracy and the state.

    4) Aristocratic Egalitarianism : How to resolve all *possible* conflicts via the common law, and eliminate all demand for the state – no justification is needed.

    All I did was base Hoppe’s deductions made from Argumentation on science and reason, rather than pseudoscience (praxeology) and rationalism.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-10 11:06:00 UTC

  • COME HOME TO ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM – LEAVE THE GHETTO. I’m an aristocratic

    COME HOME TO ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM – LEAVE THE GHETTO.

    I’m an aristocratic egalitarian. I am willing to grant full spectrum Propertarian property rights to all who are equally willing to fight for it in word and deed to the best of their ability.

    That is the ancient source of liberty: the aristocratic egalitarianism of the indo-europeans.

    Libertarians from the Rothbardian movement are largely a collection of ‘pussy-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’, ‘stupid-tarians’, ‘aspie-tarians’, ‘libertines’, and ‘dishonest-cheat-itarians’ who can be divided into two camps: those fooled by obscurantism, and those who are naturally liars, cheats, and dishonest.

    Ditch ghetto libertarianism as the immoral dishonest scheme that it is.

    Come home to aristocratic egalitarianism.

    Take liberty by force, for moral reasons, rather than beg for it for immoral reasons.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 05:19:00 UTC

  • I'm Criticizing Rothbardian Ethics, Not Hoppeian Institutions

    CRITICISM IS LIMITED TO ETHICS AND CLAIMS THAT PRAXEOLOGY IS A SCIENCE RATHER THAN A LOGIC. [I] criticize the NAP and Rothbardian ethics because they are insufficient in scope for the rational voluntary formation of a polity (of other than sociopaths). Rothbardian ethics are parasitic. High trust ethics are productive. And no polity has EVER chosen parasitic ethics. Gypsies, Jews, and to a lesser degree eastern europeans and mediterraneans as well as Arabs and some nomads practice parasitic ethics outside the group, but not within the group. No group can persist (cooperate) under in-group parasitism. My solution is to define property as people define it by their actions, not as it is defined by intersubjective verifiability (hoppe’s definition). THE NECESSITY OF THE COMMON LAW AND A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION OF IN-GROUP PROPERTY RIGHTS. [A]nd the reason this definition of property matters, is that all libertarian institutional solutions are predicated on the assumption that a constitution defining property and requiring the common law, is sufficient ‘government’ that no ‘government’ capable of making laws need exist. Without the common law libertarianism fails to be ‘rational and calculable’ since without a common definition of property, disputes over property rights are unsolvable by rational means. Now I also argue that in addition to the common law, and a definition of property as people demonstrate property by their actions, no group can compete economically against other groups unless it can produce commons. And that the production of commons requires prevention of free riding, socialization of losses and privatization of the commons and gains from the commons. HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS ARE THE ANSWER TO MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY [B]ut that is not a criticism of Hoppeian libertarian solutions to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy by the use of competing private insurance companies rather than that same insurance provided by the monopoly bureaucracy that we call the state. The problems with the state are (a) law-making (command issuance) given that laws cannot be made, only discovered, and (b) the self interest of all members of a bureaucracy and the unavoidable predation that results from bureaucracy. (c) Technically speaking the errors of democracy and majority rule are properties of one form of government, and not government per se. LIBERTARIANISM AS FREEDOM FROM CONSPIRATORIAL IMMORALITY: FREE RIDING BY THE BUREAUCRACY. [I]’ve been criticizing ‘stupid-tarians’, and ‘immoral-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’ and ‘libertines’ of late, masquerading as libertarians. If you follow a rule based ethic (the NAP) rather than the outcome of human actions in producing liberty, you are really quite stupid, honestly, because it is quite clear that (a) the NAP is a failed test if we limit property contestable in court to ‘private property’, because it’s non-rational for people to choose an immoral and unethical polity and as such they will not eliminate demand for the state under NAP. And (b) because it’s pretty obvious to all but autistic and immoral people that the NAP permits – legally – immoral and unethical behavior: thefts via indirection, deception and externality. (c) that only outcomes, not observance of rules determines the success or failure of any set of rules. And Rothbardianism is a failed, ridiculed, illogical, immoral, ethical system. So, libertarian then means ‘working for liberty that is logically and empirically achievable. If it means something else to you, then you’re just a stupid-tarian, immoral-tarian, or libertine, and not a libertarian: one who places liberty above all other moral values. If libertarian means stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly, and libertine, then we must rescue liberty and the terminology from the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine. Liberty, as a brand, as a meme, as a term, and as a political objective, is not open for capture by the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine. That would be immoral. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • I’m Criticizing Rothbardian Ethics, Not Hoppeian Institutions

    CRITICISM IS LIMITED TO ETHICS AND CLAIMS THAT PRAXEOLOGY IS A SCIENCE RATHER THAN A LOGIC. [I] criticize the NAP and Rothbardian ethics because they are insufficient in scope for the rational voluntary formation of a polity (of other than sociopaths). Rothbardian ethics are parasitic. High trust ethics are productive. And no polity has EVER chosen parasitic ethics. Gypsies, Jews, and to a lesser degree eastern europeans and mediterraneans as well as Arabs and some nomads practice parasitic ethics outside the group, but not within the group. No group can persist (cooperate) under in-group parasitism. My solution is to define property as people define it by their actions, not as it is defined by intersubjective verifiability (hoppe’s definition). THE NECESSITY OF THE COMMON LAW AND A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION OF IN-GROUP PROPERTY RIGHTS. [A]nd the reason this definition of property matters, is that all libertarian institutional solutions are predicated on the assumption that a constitution defining property and requiring the common law, is sufficient ‘government’ that no ‘government’ capable of making laws need exist. Without the common law libertarianism fails to be ‘rational and calculable’ since without a common definition of property, disputes over property rights are unsolvable by rational means. Now I also argue that in addition to the common law, and a definition of property as people demonstrate property by their actions, no group can compete economically against other groups unless it can produce commons. And that the production of commons requires prevention of free riding, socialization of losses and privatization of the commons and gains from the commons. HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS ARE THE ANSWER TO MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY [B]ut that is not a criticism of Hoppeian libertarian solutions to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy by the use of competing private insurance companies rather than that same insurance provided by the monopoly bureaucracy that we call the state. The problems with the state are (a) law-making (command issuance) given that laws cannot be made, only discovered, and (b) the self interest of all members of a bureaucracy and the unavoidable predation that results from bureaucracy. (c) Technically speaking the errors of democracy and majority rule are properties of one form of government, and not government per se. LIBERTARIANISM AS FREEDOM FROM CONSPIRATORIAL IMMORALITY: FREE RIDING BY THE BUREAUCRACY. [I]’ve been criticizing ‘stupid-tarians’, and ‘immoral-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’ and ‘libertines’ of late, masquerading as libertarians. If you follow a rule based ethic (the NAP) rather than the outcome of human actions in producing liberty, you are really quite stupid, honestly, because it is quite clear that (a) the NAP is a failed test if we limit property contestable in court to ‘private property’, because it’s non-rational for people to choose an immoral and unethical polity and as such they will not eliminate demand for the state under NAP. And (b) because it’s pretty obvious to all but autistic and immoral people that the NAP permits – legally – immoral and unethical behavior: thefts via indirection, deception and externality. (c) that only outcomes, not observance of rules determines the success or failure of any set of rules. And Rothbardianism is a failed, ridiculed, illogical, immoral, ethical system. So, libertarian then means ‘working for liberty that is logically and empirically achievable. If it means something else to you, then you’re just a stupid-tarian, immoral-tarian, or libertine, and not a libertarian: one who places liberty above all other moral values. If libertarian means stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly, and libertine, then we must rescue liberty and the terminology from the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine. Liberty, as a brand, as a meme, as a term, and as a political objective, is not open for capture by the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine. That would be immoral. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • I'm Criticizing Rothbardian Ethics, Not Hoppeian Institutions

    CRITICISM IS LIMITED TO ETHICS AND CLAIMS THAT PRAXEOLOGY IS A SCIENCE RATHER THAN A LOGIC. [I] criticize the NAP and Rothbardian ethics because they are insufficient in scope for the rational voluntary formation of a polity (of other than sociopaths). Rothbardian ethics are parasitic. High trust ethics are productive. And no polity has EVER chosen parasitic ethics. Gypsies, Jews, and to a lesser degree eastern europeans and mediterraneans as well as Arabs and some nomads practice parasitic ethics outside the group, but not within the group. No group can persist (cooperate) under in-group parasitism. My solution is to define property as people define it by their actions, not as it is defined by intersubjective verifiability (hoppe’s definition). THE NECESSITY OF THE COMMON LAW AND A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION OF IN-GROUP PROPERTY RIGHTS. [A]nd the reason this definition of property matters, is that all libertarian institutional solutions are predicated on the assumption that a constitution defining property and requiring the common law, is sufficient ‘government’ that no ‘government’ capable of making laws need exist. Without the common law libertarianism fails to be ‘rational and calculable’ since without a common definition of property, disputes over property rights are unsolvable by rational means. Now I also argue that in addition to the common law, and a definition of property as people demonstrate property by their actions, no group can compete economically against other groups unless it can produce commons. And that the production of commons requires prevention of free riding, socialization of losses and privatization of the commons and gains from the commons. HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS ARE THE ANSWER TO MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY [B]ut that is not a criticism of Hoppeian libertarian solutions to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy by the use of competing private insurance companies rather than that same insurance provided by the monopoly bureaucracy that we call the state. The problems with the state are (a) law-making (command issuance) given that laws cannot be made, only discovered, and (b) the self interest of all members of a bureaucracy and the unavoidable predation that results from bureaucracy. (c) Technically speaking the errors of democracy and majority rule are properties of one form of government, and not government per se. LIBERTARIANISM AS FREEDOM FROM CONSPIRATORIAL IMMORALITY: FREE RIDING BY THE BUREAUCRACY. [I]’ve been criticizing ‘stupid-tarians’, and ‘immoral-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’ and ‘libertines’ of late, masquerading as libertarians. If you follow a rule based ethic (the NAP) rather than the outcome of human actions in producing liberty, you are really quite stupid, honestly, because it is quite clear that (a) the NAP is a failed test if we limit property contestable in court to ‘private property’, because it’s non-rational for people to choose an immoral and unethical polity and as such they will not eliminate demand for the state under NAP. And (b) because it’s pretty obvious to all but autistic and immoral people that the NAP permits – legally – immoral and unethical behavior: thefts via indirection, deception and externality. (c) that only outcomes, not observance of rules determines the success or failure of any set of rules. And Rothbardianism is a failed, ridiculed, illogical, immoral, ethical system. So, libertarian then means ‘working for liberty that is logically and empirically achievable. If it means something else to you, then you’re just a stupid-tarian, immoral-tarian, or libertine, and not a libertarian: one who places liberty above all other moral values. If libertarian means stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly, and libertine, then we must rescue liberty and the terminology from the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine. Liberty, as a brand, as a meme, as a term, and as a political objective, is not open for capture by the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine. That would be immoral. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • I’m Criticizing Rothbardian Ethics, Not Hoppeian Institutions

    CRITICISM IS LIMITED TO ETHICS AND CLAIMS THAT PRAXEOLOGY IS A SCIENCE RATHER THAN A LOGIC. [I] criticize the NAP and Rothbardian ethics because they are insufficient in scope for the rational voluntary formation of a polity (of other than sociopaths). Rothbardian ethics are parasitic. High trust ethics are productive. And no polity has EVER chosen parasitic ethics. Gypsies, Jews, and to a lesser degree eastern europeans and mediterraneans as well as Arabs and some nomads practice parasitic ethics outside the group, but not within the group. No group can persist (cooperate) under in-group parasitism. My solution is to define property as people define it by their actions, not as it is defined by intersubjective verifiability (hoppe’s definition). THE NECESSITY OF THE COMMON LAW AND A UNIVERSAL DEFINITION OF IN-GROUP PROPERTY RIGHTS. [A]nd the reason this definition of property matters, is that all libertarian institutional solutions are predicated on the assumption that a constitution defining property and requiring the common law, is sufficient ‘government’ that no ‘government’ capable of making laws need exist. Without the common law libertarianism fails to be ‘rational and calculable’ since without a common definition of property, disputes over property rights are unsolvable by rational means. Now I also argue that in addition to the common law, and a definition of property as people demonstrate property by their actions, no group can compete economically against other groups unless it can produce commons. And that the production of commons requires prevention of free riding, socialization of losses and privatization of the commons and gains from the commons. HOPPEIAN INSTITUTIONS ARE THE ANSWER TO MONOPOLY BUREAUCRACY [B]ut that is not a criticism of Hoppeian libertarian solutions to the problem of monopoly bureaucracy by the use of competing private insurance companies rather than that same insurance provided by the monopoly bureaucracy that we call the state. The problems with the state are (a) law-making (command issuance) given that laws cannot be made, only discovered, and (b) the self interest of all members of a bureaucracy and the unavoidable predation that results from bureaucracy. (c) Technically speaking the errors of democracy and majority rule are properties of one form of government, and not government per se. LIBERTARIANISM AS FREEDOM FROM CONSPIRATORIAL IMMORALITY: FREE RIDING BY THE BUREAUCRACY. [I]’ve been criticizing ‘stupid-tarians’, and ‘immoral-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’ and ‘libertines’ of late, masquerading as libertarians. If you follow a rule based ethic (the NAP) rather than the outcome of human actions in producing liberty, you are really quite stupid, honestly, because it is quite clear that (a) the NAP is a failed test if we limit property contestable in court to ‘private property’, because it’s non-rational for people to choose an immoral and unethical polity and as such they will not eliminate demand for the state under NAP. And (b) because it’s pretty obvious to all but autistic and immoral people that the NAP permits – legally – immoral and unethical behavior: thefts via indirection, deception and externality. (c) that only outcomes, not observance of rules determines the success or failure of any set of rules. And Rothbardianism is a failed, ridiculed, illogical, immoral, ethical system. So, libertarian then means ‘working for liberty that is logically and empirically achievable. If it means something else to you, then you’re just a stupid-tarian, immoral-tarian, or libertine, and not a libertarian: one who places liberty above all other moral values. If libertarian means stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly, and libertine, then we must rescue liberty and the terminology from the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine. Liberty, as a brand, as a meme, as a term, and as a political objective, is not open for capture by the stupid, unethical, immoral, cowardly and libertine. That would be immoral. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev

  • Rules of Ethical and Moral Exchanges

    DEFINITIONS ETHICAL: no involuntary transfer local to the exchange MORAL: no involuntary transfer external to the exchange. CASES NON/MORAL / AMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary exchange. (non-violence) UNETHICAL) Two people conduct an voluntary, asymmetrically productive exchange. (unethical) ETHICAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange.(ethical) IMMORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange with externalities (immoral). MORAL) Two people conduct a voluntary, symmetrically productive exchange without externalities (moral).