Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • LOGIC: A SEQUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIONS : THE ONLY MORAL LOGIC This is where I’ve end

    http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mathematics-constructive/CONSTRUCTIVE LOGIC: A SEQUENCE OF HUMAN ACTIONS : THE ONLY MORAL LOGIC

    This is where I’ve ended up thanks to Constructive Mathematics (Intuitionism, Intuitional Mathematics, Neointuitionism).

    Logic: I apply the same requirement of operational language (strict construction) to logic – the logic of language. Of all the logics, the logic of language is the most misleading. I have the most work to do here. Much to the disappointment of practitioners of formal logic. Most of the mistakes I have come across (particularly in critical rationalism) are caused by erroneous elimination of action from that which depends upon action.

    Math: In mathematics – the logic of names, numbers and relations. This work has been done by the generations before me. They just have not had the moral criticism I have given them as an argumentative weapon before in their attack on ‘magical’ mathematics.

    Physics: It’s already present in the canons of science, and is already universally applied in physics – the logic of causality. There is very little work to be done here other than to cast some branches of physics as non-logical as currently stated.

    Cooperation: I apply the same argument to the logic of cooperation (ethics). Ethics was the easiest problem to solve by the requirement for operational language (strict constructionism).

    i) The world is real, our actions are likewise real within that world.

    ii) There is only one MORAL and ETHICAL epistemological method, and that is the scientific method – or ‘the method’.

    iii) We have invented multiple methodologies of logic that help us isolate certain properties within this method.

    iv) Statements produced by this method are ‘theories’.

    v) Some theories can be logically treated axiomatically even though they are not in fact axioms but theories.

    Knowledge of use is not equal to knowledge of construction.

    MOTIVATIONS: ELIMINATION OF LOADING, FRAMING, DECEPTION, OBSCURANTISM, AND PSEUDOSCIENCE FROM POLITICAL DISCOURSE.

    Law is but another logic. Politics is discourse on law. There is no logical specialization to citizenship save the logic of cooperation and even that specialization will forever be above the masses. If we are to eliminate deception from political discourse, we must eliminate it in all the logics. I was not correct that immorality in language originated with mathematics. Only that mathematical legitimacy was used as a means for expanding pseudoscience.

    Just because something is convenient, if it is immoral, it remains immoral. Obscurantism, platonism, and use without comprehension of construction, are all forms of deception that insert magic and religion into the world.

    Most of these conveniences are easy means of compensating for the problem of reducing any ‘computation’ into the two or three second window of human cognitive ability. However, as long as we can construct from operations, any entity, we can forever use the name of that construction as a function – giving us a shorthand for it that fits within our cognitive window.

    I am sorry for labeling conveniences and contrivances as immoral, despite the cherished mythos that philosophers, logicians and mathematicians have warmed themselves in against the cold of realism. But no one else has yet attacked platonism as immoral. And I’ve done it I think pretty conclusively.

    If you can purvey platonism, then others can equally claim to purvey mysticism, obscurantism, pseudoscience, loading and framing. Because if utility is the only tests, then religion is clearly superior to rational politics, and pseudoscience an effective means of governing (keynesianism), and the mind finds greater comfort in loading, framing, conflation and justifying, than it does in grasping objective reality.

    Sorry, but if you can’t construct it, you don’t understand it. And the reason you don’t understand it is probably a cover for a lie.

    Certainly that’s what’s happened in math and logic. Most of philosophy, continental in particular is deception. Justification. Lie.

    The only moral statements are those under strict construction.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-28 12:45:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN NON-LOGIC OF ‘RIGHTS’ You know, if you have to work that hard to ‘in

    LIBERTARIAN NON-LOGIC OF ‘RIGHTS’

    You know, if you have to work that hard to ‘invent’ something like a ‘right’, it pretty clear evidence that there is something wrong with your reasoning.

    I’m an aristocratic egalitarian libertarian. We obtain property rights from one another by mastering violence and organizing to apply that violence against anyone who would interfere with our contract for property rights.

    See how parsimonious that is? Occam’s razor and all that?

    Because it’s true.

    You earn your rights only by the ancient exchange of the promise to protect all who claim property rights from those who would deny them.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-15 14:09:00 UTC

  • TERNARY ETHICS vs BINARY vs SINGULAR Examples 1) Aristocracy(violence) vs Ghetto

    TERNARY ETHICS vs BINARY vs SINGULAR

    Examples

    1) Aristocracy(violence) vs Ghetto (trade) vs Peasantry (Submission)

    2) Prohibition on free riding vs private property vs community property

    3) Do not unto others… vs do only unto others.. vs do unto others…

    4) Ternary Ethics vs Binary Ethics vs Singular ethics (submission)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 13:49:00 UTC

  • THE END OF MORAL INTUITIONISM AND THE RISE OF MORAL REALISM (meaningful) Most ph

    THE END OF MORAL INTUITIONISM AND THE RISE OF MORAL REALISM

    (meaningful)

    Most philosophical debate degenerates to a recursive discourse on norms.

    That’s because human beings really enjoy the ease of introspection, and the self reinforcing reward of moral intuitionism.

    But if propertarianism is correct, and I am pretty certain that it is, then moral truths can be expressed as purely rational arguments, and introspection merely tells you about your own reproductive strategy, class strategy, culture strategy, and cognitive biases.

    That means an end to moral intuitionism.

    Propertarianism allows us to produce a formal logic of ethics and morality, that denies us our cognitive biases and rational limitations.

    And that is why we need formal logics.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-12 12:44:00 UTC

  • ROTHBARD AS DESTROYER OF LIBERTY? So is liberty defined by voluntary exchange? O

    ROTHBARD AS DESTROYER OF LIBERTY?

    So is liberty defined by voluntary exchange? Or is liberty defined by suppressing all in-group involuntary transfer?

    I’ll help you: it’s the latter.

    Just like the Golden and Silver Rules, these two propositions lead to vastly different conclusions and their application leads to vastly different societies.

    The gnostics were right about ‘Jehova’ and I’m right about ‘Rothbardianism’.

    You couldn’t invent a better way to destroy liberty than a pseudoscience that encouraged passionate devotion to a false theory as a distraction from a scientific answer to a true theory.

    “You oughtta’ think on that a bit” before you repeat one more rothbardian falsehood as a prayer for liberty.

    Rothbardian ethics are immoral and parasitic, and the NAP is immoral, unethical and socially destructive.

    If there is a hell, Jehova is laughing at you every time you quote the NAP.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-09 15:30:00 UTC

  • Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans The intra-family system of o

    Descriptive High Trust Ethics of Northern Europeans

    The intra-family system of outbred North Sea Europeans contains these rules:

    0) Private property

    1) Voluntary Exchange

    2) Symmetry and Warranty*

    3) Prohibition on Externality*

    4) Requirement for Value Added*

    5) Prohibition on familial Rents and Free Riding.

    6) Prohibition on Socialization of Losses and Privatization of Gains

    These additional properties forbid the use of ‘cunning’ in exchange itself, and force all cunning in production, and distribution.

    Furthermore in propertarianism, I have added political constraints on contracts (ad laws):

    7) Requirement for operational language (as a prevention for obscurantism. Which means propertarian language must be used for contracts and law)

    8) Requirement for Calculability ( prohibition on pooling and laundering – this is a complex topic.)

    9) The right of exclusion (ostracization).

    These last three topics are the complex matters I have had to wrestle with in Propertarianism. Primarily as a defense against the Continentals, the Culture of Critique, the Postmoderns, and their philosophical heirs. All of whom have adopted the technique of obscurantism from monotheistic religion, and modernized it for advocacy of the state. Unfortunately, the Culture of Critique, Postmodernists, and the Continentals have mastered the art of obscurantism, and as such we must require operational language, and calculability of contracts, as does science, as a means of prohibiting use of obscurant language as means of obtaining discounts (theft).

    High Trust Is A Prohibition On Discounts

    These rules prohibit discounts. The only reason to eschew violence and engage in exchange is if ALL discounts are prohibited from the market, and therefore, by consequence, all improvements are in the construction and distribution of goods, and NOT in the verbal means of selling those goods.

    As Such, All Conflict Is Pressed Into The Market

    Not the market for words, but the market for goods and services. And since the only possible means of competing is innovation in production and distribution, then such societies will innovate in production and distribution faster than all others. So not only do such rules that place a prohibition on both violence, theft, and discounts foster peace and prosperity, it fosters innovation, and trust.

    As Such,

    1. Property is the result of the partial suppression of discounts,

    2) Private property is the result of full suppression of discounts

    3) Trust is the RESULT of total Suppression of Discounts.

    As Such, A Common Law System Can Function

    Where a homogenous set of property rights exist, and *ALL* discounts are violations of property rights, demand for intervention is limited to disputes over property via common law courts. Without homogeneity of property rights, and wherever all discounts are not suppressed, then demand for the State increases, since commensurability of discounts is logically impossible. (This is profound if you grasp it.) In other words, under rothbardian ethics, the common law is not possible. Under aristocratic ethics, it is possible.

    Any Science Requires Means of Commensurability

    As such Propetarianism provides us with the previously unmet promise of praxeology by changing the theory of human behavior from a deductive a priori form of rationalism, to an empirically descriptive science of all human behavior whose units of measure are property, and whose truths and falsehoods are involuntary transfers via discounts.

    Praxeology: (Action, Property, Calculation and Incentives), supplies us with a science of human action, if we treat property as DESCRIPTIVE rather than NORMATIVE.

    1) Reason renders words and concepts commensurable.

    2) Numbers render countable objects commensurable

    3) Measurements render relations commensurable

    4) Physics renders physical causes commensurable.

    5) Money renders goods and services commensurable

    6) Property renders cooperation (ethics, morals, politics) commensurable

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 18:23:00 UTC

  • THE SILVER RULE IS ARISTOCRATIC (TRUE), THE GOLEN RULE IS SOCIALIST (FALSE) Chri

    THE SILVER RULE IS ARISTOCRATIC (TRUE), THE GOLEN RULE IS SOCIALIST (FALSE)

    Christianity has it backwards you know. The golden rule is stated from a slave’s perspective: “do to others as you would have done to you”. This implies equality that can never exist except among the destitute. It is also not very useful for complex societies.

    The anglo saxon version is the correct one: “never do to others that which you would not have done to you.” (AEthelbert).

    I cannot know or achieve equality. I can never know what to do. I can however, know what NOT to do.

    This is true for any theoretical construct.

    The golden rule is false, and the silver rule is true, for these reasons.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 11:14:00 UTC

  • THE LOGIC OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY INVERTED Instead of defining liberty as a stat

    THE LOGIC OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY INVERTED

    Instead of defining liberty as a statement of victimhood – as rebellion by the weak: rights to property, we can state liberty as a positive – assertions by the strong: rights if exclusion and prohibitions on parasitism.

    NECESSARY RIGHTS

    1) Right of Private Property (right of exclusion from use)

    2) Right of Boycott (right of exclusion from trade)

    3) Right of Secession (right of exclusion from governance)

    Unless you have these three rights of exclusion, you are not free. You merely have permission.

    All rights are rights of exclusion. A fact which is missing from the logic of ethics.

    Freedom is the right to exclude, and that exclusion is what makes voluntary cooperation the only possible moral action we can take.

    By exclusion we boycott cooperation with those who do not engage in equally moral suppression of free riding.

    By the promise of violence we insure our boycott.

    This is the logic of aristocracy vs the logic of bourgeoisie and proletarian.

    The weak beg. The strong demand.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-27 08:12:00 UTC

  • WHAT DO WE VIOLATE? –“…I’ve come to think of violence as amoral. The rapist,

    WHAT DO WE VIOLATE?

    –“…I’ve come to think of violence as amoral. The rapist, and the victim who kills him in self defense… one is immoral, the other moral. Nothing to do with the violence itself, but the violation of rights.”–

    One can produce property without rights — all living creatures do.

    But one cannot produce a right except via contractual exchange.

    So then, do property rights have any meaning outside of the context of a state or polity with whom one ostensibly holds a contract?

    What is the point of using this term “rights”? Its meaningless except in the context of some contract or other – a contract libertarians would almost always refuse to enter.

    You create your property by your own actions. If people try to appropriate you property against your wishes, then that is not a violation of your magical rights – its just an attack against your property. Period.

    In fact, the only reason to define morality any differently is to logically excuse parasitism.

    Then the only limit to your property is your own parasitism : free riding on others who produce benefits that you consume but that you fail to pay for.

    We need no rights whatsoever. We need only recognize property is the result of our actions. Nothing more.

    All platonism is false.

    We are supposed to be the smart people. We should try to demonstrate it. Libertarian shouldn’t mean “stupid”. Too often it does.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-16 11:14:00 UTC

  • Definition: "Ghetto Ethics"

    [G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.