Theme: Responsibility

  • Don’t attack me. Ever. It’s a moral duty of aristocracy to limit argument to tru

    Don’t attack me. Ever.

    It’s a moral duty of aristocracy to limit argument to truthful discussion of the facts. If you attack me I will attack you back and return to the central argument, and I will not give up until you apologize, surrender, or leave.

    This is a costly means of conducting prosecution of liars and deceivers, but its an aristocratic tax we pay for preservation of the informational commons and our reputations as aristocracy.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-20 07:12:00 UTC

  • THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF PROPERTARIAN ETHICS (revised and expanded)(worth repeati

    THE FIRST PRINCIPLES OF PROPERTARIAN ETHICS

    (revised and expanded)(worth repeating)

    0 — Man is a costly form of life in an unpredictable universe.

    1 – Man must acquire resources to live amid this unpredictable universe.

    2 – Man must act to acquire and inventory resources:

    3 — Man must defend that which he has acquired and inventoried. (His property is demonstrated by what he defends from loss, and what he retaliates for imposition of costs upon.)

    4 – Man demonstrates that he acquires and defends:

    ……4.1 Life, Time, Rest, Memories, Actions, Social Status, Reputation

    ……4.2 Mates (access to sex/reproduction), Children (genetics), Familial Relations (security), Non-Familial Relations (utility),Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)

    ……4.3 Organizational ties (work), Knowledge ties (skills, crafts), Insurance (community)

    ……4.4 Several Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over, having obtained them without imposing costs upon others.

    ……4.5 Shareholder Property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset), Commons: Unrecorded and Unquantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons), Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.

    ……4.6 Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.

    ……4.7 Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.

    5 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources. (Cooperation is disproportionately more rewarding than any other activity.)

    6 – Man must only cooperate where it is beneficial and preferable to non-cooperation. As such all cooperative actions or sets of actions, must result in:

    ……5.1 Productive (increases property)

    ……5.2 Fully Informed (without deceit – a form of discounting)

    ……5.3 Warrantied (promise of non parasitism warranty of restitution)

    ……5.4 Voluntary Exchange

    ……5.5 Free of negative externality (imposes no costs on the property of third parties).

    7 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Cooperation is itself a disproportionately valuable scarcity)

    8 – Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Man evolved necessary and expensive moral intuitions to preserve cooperation – including expensive forms of punishment of offenders.)

    9 – Man engages in parasitism by:

    ……7.1 violence,

    ……7.2 theft,

    ……7.3 fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission,

    ……7.4 externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses,

    ……7.5 conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide. (Violence, Theft, Fraud, Externality, and Conspiracy.)

    10 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.

    ……10.1 Man possesses three weapons of influence: violence(imposition of material costs), gossip(imposition of opportunity costs: ostracization-inclusion), and remuneration(transfer of assets: exchange).

    ……10.2 Man uses all three weapons of influences, usually in concert, to different degrees.

    ……10.3 Some men specialize in one weapon of influence: Warriors, Sheriffs and judges: Violence; priests and public intellectuals: Gossip; Organizers of Production: Remuneration.

    11 – The most rapid means by which man can organize the suppression of parasitism is by defining property rights as all demonstrated property, and creating a court of universal standing under the common law, under the rule of law before a jury of his peers – since any innovation in parasitism is suppressed by the creation of a new prohibition with the first suit adjudicated. (Common, organically evolutionary law most rapidly prevents expansion of demonstrated parasitic opportunities.)

    12 – A market for goods and services produces consumables, but a market for commons produces non-consumables. Non-consumable goods that provide utility whether those goods be privately constructed (use by private shareholders only) or publicly constructed (use by all citizen-shareholders). Commons (whether physical, normative or institutional) provide a disproportionate return to shareholders by preventing consumption and preserving utility.

    — dissent and adjudication not assent and confirmation –

    –division of cognitive labor–

    — the family-regulation of reproduction–

    13 – A condition of liberty is constructed when all men, including those who participate in the construction of commons – members of the government – are equally bound by the prohibition on parasitism: the common law against parasitism. (Morality is a synonym for non-parasitism. Liberty is a synonym for a moral – meaning non-parasitic – government.)

    14 – A condition of both interpersonal morality, and it’s mirror: legal liberty, both forces all human action necessary for man’s survival into productive participation in the market by denying parasitism, and reduces or eliminates transaction costs (frictions due to risk), which in turn maximizes the potential economic velocity of the group.

    15 – If one does not engage in parasitism by doing so, the forcible increase of the suppression of others’ free riding is always by definition moral and just. This increases the possibilities of prosperity for all men. (Legal colonialism is moral. Economic colonialism is not.) (Aristocracy is obliged to increase the pool of aristocratic people whenever possible, and affordable.)

    There is no competitive strategy greater than the suppression of parasitism in all it’s forms. Because all human effort is limited to the market for productive ends, and all market activity is conducted under the lowest possible speculative friction.

    The optimum group evolutionary strategy is to suppress all parasitism, while constantly driving up it’s intelligence by suppressing the reproduction of its lower classes (non performers). This causes no harm, and produces the greatest and longest term competitive benefit.)

    If many groups follow this strategy, the largest group with the highest median IQ and aggression (competitive energy) will produce the most innovation.

    Some groups cannot compete. So they will continue to act as parasites. (Gypsies).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-19 23:20:00 UTC

  • Duelling?

    —“What’s the relationship between truth-telling and dueling? Is it because you should only say something you believe to the extent that you’re willing to fight for it?”— Great question. It’s actually two different issues. You impose a cost on someone else’s reputation at the peril of your life. Especially after guns were invented. They are a great equaliser. If you speak truthfully and it imposes a restitution then that is a moral obligation to your fellow citizens. If you speak the truth in general then that is a cost to you but it is the cost of entry into the informational commons just as respect for property is a cost you must bear for entry into the market. The purpose of judicial combat was to create time to cool off and apologize, and negotiate a settlement rather than put noble families in feud. The duel degenerated into sanctioned murder. The problem is preventing duel by construction (murder). That requires a third party to judge the restitution for the insult.

  • Duelling?

    —“What’s the relationship between truth-telling and dueling? Is it because you should only say something you believe to the extent that you’re willing to fight for it?”— Great question. It’s actually two different issues. You impose a cost on someone else’s reputation at the peril of your life. Especially after guns were invented. They are a great equaliser. If you speak truthfully and it imposes a restitution then that is a moral obligation to your fellow citizens. If you speak the truth in general then that is a cost to you but it is the cost of entry into the informational commons just as respect for property is a cost you must bear for entry into the market. The purpose of judicial combat was to create time to cool off and apologize, and negotiate a settlement rather than put noble families in feud. The duel degenerated into sanctioned murder. The problem is preventing duel by construction (murder). That requires a third party to judge the restitution for the insult.

  • How Far Are You Willing To Go?

    [H]OW FAR ARE YOU WILLING TO GO? To protect your family? To protect your tribe? To protect your civilization? To protect mankind?

    What are you willing to do? Talk is cheap. Gossip is ineffective. The only solution is to raise the cost of the status quo until it is intolerable.

    Source: (5) Curt Doolittle

  • Propertarianism is for the Prosecution

    (good) [I]f we claim we speak truthfully, then that we perform an act of testimony. If we are both trying to find the truth, then we engage in an act of discourse. If we are both trying to persuade and inform a jury(audience), then we participate in a debate.But if you are trying to engage in deceit for the purpose of theft (free riding) then you are a defendant and I am a prosecutor.I AM A PROSECUTOR That is why I appear and am hostile. If you are a parasite, then I am a prosecutor. And I want to build an army of prosecutors the way the Jesuits did. Except this time, we will prosecute liars.

  • Propertarianism is for the Prosecution

    (good) [I]f we claim we speak truthfully, then that we perform an act of testimony. If we are both trying to find the truth, then we engage in an act of discourse. If we are both trying to persuade and inform a jury(audience), then we participate in a debate.But if you are trying to engage in deceit for the purpose of theft (free riding) then you are a defendant and I am a prosecutor.I AM A PROSECUTOR That is why I appear and am hostile. If you are a parasite, then I am a prosecutor. And I want to build an army of prosecutors the way the Jesuits did. Except this time, we will prosecute liars.

  • PROPERTARIANISM FOR THE PROSECUTION. (good) [I]f we claim we speak truthfully, t

    PROPERTARIANISM FOR THE PROSECUTION.

    (good)

    [I]f we claim we speak truthfully, then that we perform an act of testimony.

    If we are both trying to find the truth, then we engage in an act of discourse.

    If we are both trying to persuade and inform a jury(audience), then we participate in a debate.

    But if you are trying to engage in deceit for the purpose of theft (free riding) then you are a defendant and I am a prosecutor.

    I AM A PROSECUTOR.

    That is why I appear and am hostile. If you are a parasite, then I am a prosecutor. And I want to build an army of prosecutors the way the Jesuits did. Except this time, we will prosecute liars.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-13 15:44:00 UTC

  • And I can’t say that such an act was moral by any standard. When alternatives ex

    And I can’t say that such an act was moral by any standard. When alternatives existed.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-10 11:14:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619464696291328000

    Reply addressees: @SouthernLady328 @randiego2 @voxdotcom

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619059766950817792


    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/619059766950817792

  • ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTARIANISM VS GHETTO LIBERTINISM You know, you can put a sign o

    ARISTOCRATIC LIBERTARIANISM VS GHETTO LIBERTINISM

    You know, you can put a sign over your head and call yourself a libertarian: an advocate for a condition of liberty, but that doesn’t make you a libertarian. Any more than calling someone an Austrian Economist in the Cosmopolitan wing makes you an Austrian Economist in the German Wing. What makes you an Austrian economist is seeking to improve institutions of cooperation so that we reduce all possible friction (transaction costs). And what makes you a libertarian is to seek to improve cooperation by opposing all institutional means of free riding, so that we reduce all friction (transaction costs).

    So if you want a libertarian movement, you are kind of stuck with Aristocratic Libertarianism, because ONLY aristocratic libertarianism (and not ghetto libertinism) can produce sufficient elimination of transaction costs that it is rational to join an anarchic, and by anarchic I mean NOMOCRATIC, polity.

    I want to unite libertarians and conservatives. But to do that I have to demonstrate the propaganda of the Rothbardians as not only insufficient, but an obscurantist deception on the same scale as neo-conservatism, marxism, socialism, and monotheism.

    So we now know Rothbardianism is another cosmopolitan deception – just like socialism – by means of loading, framing, and overloading.

    And we also know that the conservatives have failed to produce a ratio-scientific and institutional solution to the problem of the destruction of western civilization through lying, pseudoscience, propaganda, using the academy and media.

    So knowing that classical liberal conservatism and rothbardian libertinism have failed, and why they have failed (which I have elaborated upon repeatedly elsewhere) we can abandon hope that either classical liberal conservatism or rothbardian libertinism will restore western civilization to a condition of liberty.

    And then we can look at the institutional solution provided by Propertarianism, and create a post-classical liberal political system that does not require majority rule, and allows groups to conduct political exchanges in a market for the construction of commons, rather than impose their will upon minorities.

    We do not need to approve such contracts. We need only demonstrate that they are objectively ethical and moral. And if all such contracts like all commons are open to criticism under universal standing, then we need no assent. Our proposals instead, need to survive criticism.

    And by that structural change we turn politics into a branch of science.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-07-03 03:29:00 UTC