Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Why Do Libertarians Treat Social Order And Civil Society As Free Goods?

    They don’t. While it costs nothing to abstain from theft, fraud and violence, it costs something to administer defense and disputes.  The libertarian argument is that these things can be produced by private organizations. They have produced a great deal of work that demonstrates how and why that private production of defense is both possible and preferable.

    The European monarchies were private governments, and there were political parties and labor unions and a great deal of diversity, with many cities having different neighborhoods for each ethnic group.  The monarchies were less warlike, taxed people much less, provided public services and had active civil societies.   Not that we should return to monarchies but the point is that these things can, and have worked.

    The problem with government is a bureaucracy. If you were to privatize everything, you would come close the the libertarian idea.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-do-libertarians-treat-social-order-and-civil-society-as-free-goods

  • Institutions That Allow Different Groups To Exchange, Not Pursue Shared Beliefs.

    The Golden Rule is quite simple. But what complexity emerges from it? Property rights are very simple. But what complexity emerges from them? The problem of cooperative politics does not seem simple until we reduce it to these first principles: 1) the dependence by humans on instinct in the face of complexity, and 2) the instinctual and irresolvable conflict in mating strategies between the genders — and the complexity that emerges in society because of that irresolvable conflict. 3) The instinctual, pervasive, and necessary differences in signals between the classes, tribes and races, because of the differences in distribution of ability, exacerbated by a market economy. Yet there is a solution provided by the libertarians: exchange is cooperative, encourages mutual understanding, and produces win-win rather than win-lose outcomes. The English class-based political model was superior to the democratic model for that reason: we now have a winner-take-all society in permanent conflict rather than a system of cooperation between classes with different strategies and no means of resolving that conflict except for class warfare, constant polarization and social disintegration. The solution is to create institutions where classes with different evolutionary strategies can cooperate despite those differences through a process of exchange. Since exchange must be calculable, which in this case means reducible to something so that it can be measured, then we can improve our existing institutions by requiring voluntary exchange between the classes that is reducible to calculative formulae. ie: contracts rather than laws. Data rather than moralistic rationalism. Interest and ownership rather than taxation. It is the process of democratic government as we have constructed it as a winner take all proposition that is the source of both our conflict and social disintegration. And if one is to argue against this strategy, one makes two mistakes. First, that you simply want to win regardless of the wants of others. And as such you expose yourself as impolitic and using the government as a proxy for theft fraud and violence. Second, that the miracle of the west has been its ability to produce of a balace of powers that requires competition and exchange in favor of the masses. And universalism, which the left seeks to embrace, is just the most recent version of the error of simplicity that all other civilizations have fallen into, and has resulted in their impoverishment and suffering. Besides being a vanity, it is a demonstration of a false consensus bias, and ignores the value that comes from competition, and the problems that arise with bureaucracy. The rest of my arguments, which expose and articulate our different strategies, are irrelevant once we create a set of institutions that makes that our differences in strategies something that is to our advantage. We do not need to engage in perpetuating and exacerbating the problem of politics by attempting to get a democratic majority to agree on universal goals. Something which is imposible because of those differences in biological strategies. We need only advocate institutions that allow each group to achieve its goals. Markets are useful in that they produce aggregate beneficial ends for all parties despite differences in preferences, knowledge and ability. And by creating a market for class cooperation we can produce beneficial ends for the aggregate by serving each other rather than destroying each other.

  • Institutions That Allow Different Groups To Exchange, Not Pursue Shared Beliefs.

    The Golden Rule is quite simple. But what complexity emerges from it? Property rights are very simple. But what complexity emerges from them? The problem of cooperative politics does not seem simple until we reduce it to these first principles: 1) the dependence by humans on instinct in the face of complexity, and 2) the instinctual and irresolvable conflict in mating strategies between the genders — and the complexity that emerges in society because of that irresolvable conflict. 3) The instinctual, pervasive, and necessary differences in signals between the classes, tribes and races, because of the differences in distribution of ability, exacerbated by a market economy. Yet there is a solution provided by the libertarians: exchange is cooperative, encourages mutual understanding, and produces win-win rather than win-lose outcomes. The English class-based political model was superior to the democratic model for that reason: we now have a winner-take-all society in permanent conflict rather than a system of cooperation between classes with different strategies and no means of resolving that conflict except for class warfare, constant polarization and social disintegration. The solution is to create institutions where classes with different evolutionary strategies can cooperate despite those differences through a process of exchange. Since exchange must be calculable, which in this case means reducible to something so that it can be measured, then we can improve our existing institutions by requiring voluntary exchange between the classes that is reducible to calculative formulae. ie: contracts rather than laws. Data rather than moralistic rationalism. Interest and ownership rather than taxation. It is the process of democratic government as we have constructed it as a winner take all proposition that is the source of both our conflict and social disintegration. And if one is to argue against this strategy, one makes two mistakes. First, that you simply want to win regardless of the wants of others. And as such you expose yourself as impolitic and using the government as a proxy for theft fraud and violence. Second, that the miracle of the west has been its ability to produce of a balace of powers that requires competition and exchange in favor of the masses. And universalism, which the left seeks to embrace, is just the most recent version of the error of simplicity that all other civilizations have fallen into, and has resulted in their impoverishment and suffering. Besides being a vanity, it is a demonstration of a false consensus bias, and ignores the value that comes from competition, and the problems that arise with bureaucracy. The rest of my arguments, which expose and articulate our different strategies, are irrelevant once we create a set of institutions that makes that our differences in strategies something that is to our advantage. We do not need to engage in perpetuating and exacerbating the problem of politics by attempting to get a democratic majority to agree on universal goals. Something which is imposible because of those differences in biological strategies. We need only advocate institutions that allow each group to achieve its goals. Markets are useful in that they produce aggregate beneficial ends for all parties despite differences in preferences, knowledge and ability. And by creating a market for class cooperation we can produce beneficial ends for the aggregate by serving each other rather than destroying each other.

  • One Brick At A time: A Propertarian Definition of Tolerance

    One Brick At A time: A Propertarian Definition of Tolerance http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/03/06/a-propertarian-definition-of-tolerance/

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-06 16:17:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/177065497790132224

  • A Propertarian Definition of Tolerance

    Every society contains a population which together, as shareholders, possess a portfolio of norms, a portfolio of opportunities, and a portfolio of capital. When we tolerate something, it means that we are willing to bear the knowing theft, involuntary transfer, or privatization of some small part of those portfolios that we would expect other members of the society to avoid. We can bear these costs for both positive and negative reasons: Positive: as an investment in the future, in the hope that these people will learn the norms, increase the portfolio of opportunities, or increase the portfolio of assets. Negative: as a matter of convenience, resulting in our privatization of public assets ourselves, we can refrain from paying the cost of policing the portfolios by forgoing opportunities with the individual, or bearing the costs of protecting those assets from involuntary transfer. The only way to know the difference between the positive and negative use of Tolerance, is to know whether the actions of the individual or group in question will result in the accumulation of assets or not. But it should be clear that it is impossible to perform neutral tolerance. All tolerance is either good or bad. Claiming ignorance is just convenience: privatization. Theft of public assets for one’s personal consumption. The complexity arises when multiple portfolios are involve and outcomes are speculative. Unless ‘Tolerance’ is an economic strategy whose impact is fully understood by the population, it is not investment but convenience. The example in the western countries is that they pay for their social programs by a) letting the USA pay for their international trade and defense costs, and b) using immigrants to create consumption not possible for the people to create by productivity. In canada, we add c) which is that we export resources. So the cost to canada is one of a pair of risk propositions: that immigrants can be assimilated sufficiently that a ‘canada’ and its portfolio can be maintained, OR that the future is irrelevant, and there is no responsibility we hold toward the future. In the States, one population holds to its heritage – attempting to retain its portfolio in the belief that it is something unique in human history. Another seeks to consume that portfolio in an attempt to build a more utopian society. And that is the source of conflict.

  • A Propertarian Definition of Tolerance

    Every society contains a population which together, as shareholders, possess a portfolio of norms, a portfolio of opportunities, and a portfolio of capital. When we tolerate something, it means that we are willing to bear the knowing theft, involuntary transfer, or privatization of some small part of those portfolios that we would expect other members of the society to avoid. We can bear these costs for both positive and negative reasons: Positive: as an investment in the future, in the hope that these people will learn the norms, increase the portfolio of opportunities, or increase the portfolio of assets. Negative: as a matter of convenience, resulting in our privatization of public assets ourselves, we can refrain from paying the cost of policing the portfolios by forgoing opportunities with the individual, or bearing the costs of protecting those assets from involuntary transfer. The only way to know the difference between the positive and negative use of Tolerance, is to know whether the actions of the individual or group in question will result in the accumulation of assets or not. But it should be clear that it is impossible to perform neutral tolerance. All tolerance is either good or bad. Claiming ignorance is just convenience: privatization. Theft of public assets for one’s personal consumption. The complexity arises when multiple portfolios are involve and outcomes are speculative. Unless ‘Tolerance’ is an economic strategy whose impact is fully understood by the population, it is not investment but convenience. The example in the western countries is that they pay for their social programs by a) letting the USA pay for their international trade and defense costs, and b) using immigrants to create consumption not possible for the people to create by productivity. In canada, we add c) which is that we export resources. So the cost to canada is one of a pair of risk propositions: that immigrants can be assimilated sufficiently that a ‘canada’ and its portfolio can be maintained, OR that the future is irrelevant, and there is no responsibility we hold toward the future. In the States, one population holds to its heritage – attempting to retain its portfolio in the belief that it is something unique in human history. Another seeks to consume that portfolio in an attempt to build a more utopian society. And that is the source of conflict.

  • Brick At A Time: A Propertarian Definition Of Tolerance

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/2012/03/06/a-propertarian-definition-of-tolerance/One Brick At A Time: A Propertarian Definition Of Tolerance

    Source date (UTC): 2012-03-06 11:17:00 UTC

  • Proudhon’s Crusoe Presents A False Moral Dilemma

    In reference to What is Property? Dual Meanings from Punk Johnny Cash at Gonzo Times, where the author uses the artificial moral dilemma put forth by Proudhon, where a castaway arrives upon a Robinson Crusoe island and is left to die because there are not enough resources to keep two men alive. Crusoe’s Single Man On An Island problem is a reductio argument. It is a false moral dilemma. It is an argument to extremes. Property is an argument to norms, not extremens. In almost all most cases, an additional hand will dramatically increase production, so that the productivity of two is higher than the productivity of one. That’s why we have a division of labor. Because more hands make light work, we like increases in populations. because there is no way for any individual to know the limit of the land within some geography that is much more complex than a small island, the institution of property allows us to tell whether we can breed or not, based upon whether we can afford to support our offspring or not. That’s what property, money and prices do for us. A more accurate example, is that there are many islands, and each island has evenly distributed spaces on it occupied by an individual. And that each increase in population means less space for others. If the land has a productive limit (all land does) then you have a maximum population. That is why there was an Irish Potato Famine. Irish land is capable of supporting one or two people per acre. Except that is, if you plant potatoes. So the peasants bred up to over a dozen people per acre, and when the blight arrived, they died in vast numbers because there was no substitute. Property exists to regulate our behavior – including our breeding behavior. The fact that industrial productivity is so much higher, and the fact that our ability to capture and make use of hydrocarbons is so prolific, that we have been able to multiple the world population by six in over the past century, does not mask the reality, that we must at some point have productive land and resources, and a means by which we cooperate, plan and produce using the scarce resources at our disposal. When someone breeds what they cannot support, they then steal by the most stealthy means possible, from everyone else who IS regulating their behavior. We already know that impulsivity among the less intelligent is an exceptional breeding strategy. That’s why the fertility of the proletariat tends to chase the productivity of the productive. The only time that there is a conflict over property is when fertility exceeds productivity of the resources available. The real question is, why did the proletarian’s parents breed a child who could be kept off Crusoe’s island, when they were unable to provide for him? The only questions of property that arise are due to the excess of human population over the productivity of the technology at hand. Property is malthusian. At some point, on any bit of land, the productivity is no longer capable of supporting additional population without tradeoffs in deaths. Our vast population booms are due to increases in the productive technology that we make use of. Our impoverishment is due to a lack of property rights: that is, that those who breed but are unproductive, are stealing from those who breed but are productive. In that sense, anti-propertarians are saying that the first right is the right to bring children into the world. Property, like money, and prices, is part of an information system by which we regulate our actions. And those societies that do not regulate them, are impoverished. Those societies that have poor property definitions, poor cultural contracts, and poor institutions for calculating the use of resources, remain poor. That is the most likely reason why colder populations have higher IQ’s – the environment is more hostile to the fringe’s breeding. What we have done since the beginning of the 20th century, is to subsidize overbreeding by the unproductive. We have exchanged property rights which limit overpopulation for birthrights at the expense of property rights. Why is it that it is acceptable to ask one set of people to do with less, so that others may breed? Why is that a moral position? Isn’t that the whole reason we have the problems of exploitation and over consumption that the left so often rails about? Why is it immoral to require that people have the economic means of supporting children, before they can bear them? That’s the right question. Not whether we should respect property rights.

  • LIBERTARIANS: OK. Let me help out on this issue of Property Rights: Property isn

    LIBERTARIANS: OK. Let me help out on this issue of Property Rights:

    Property isn’t the only ‘right’. It’s that all ‘rights’ can be expressed as property rights. If all rights are expressed as property rights, then the voluntary and involuntary transfers are made visible and open to rational analysis, articulation and debate. Expressing all rights as property rights helps us articulate the actual transfers – voluntary and involuntary – inherent in moral arguments. It helps us avoid the conflict of visions inherent in moral arguments, which are, by their very nature, inarticulate ‘folk speech’.

    So, please try not to confuse the peasants too much. They get agitated, unruly, and even more irrational. We’re supposed to be the smart ones. OK?

    Source date (UTC): 2012-01-01 13:09:00 UTC

  • on Discourse Ethics

    http://www.capitalismv3.com/?p=2862Kinsella on Discourse Ethics.

    Source date (UTC): 2011-06-13 20:14:00 UTC