Curt Doolittle

Theme: Truth

  • THE BARRIER TO ENTRY FOR PROPERTARIANISM IS A ‘GOOD’ One of the problems that pl

    THE BARRIER TO ENTRY FOR PROPERTARIANISM IS A ‘GOOD’

    One of the problems that plagues both Neo-Reaction and Libertinism(Rothbardian Cosmopolitan libertarianism), is the lack of formal logic means both disciplines attract lunatics. And there isn’t any defense against it.

    I had always considered propertarianism’s rather challenging learning curve as a negative. But in light of what I”ve seen, it’s actually a positive. Either you can construct a propertarian argument or you can’t. If you can’t, well, then you don’t have anything to say.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-09 05:28:00 UTC

  • Is Propertarianism Utilitarian?

    (worth repeating) ( h/t: Kyle Trotta ) [I]s Propertarianism Utilitarian? First, Propertarianism consists of multiple concepts: (a) Testimonial Truth. (b) Testimonialism: The unification of morality, philosophy, law and science under testimonial truth. (c) Propertarian Ethics and Politics: a universal language of ethics and politics. (d) Testimonial Classical Liberalism: the means of constructing institutions that produce commons – (because truth and consequential trust, is the reason westerners can produce such hyper-competitive commons.) (e) Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Western Aristocratic Group Evolutionary Strategy) We (meaning the people who advise me) felt that lumping everything under the single term ‘Propertarianism’ was simply easier. It’s easier to understand one name than five or six. So when we say ‘Propertarianism’ in the narrowest sense, its the formal logic of ethics and politics. When we use it casually, in the broader sense, we refer to the use of that formal logic to create aristocratic egalitarian political orders. Now, back to “Utilitarian”. When we say something is utilitarian, we mean that the decidability of moral questions is determined by the usefulness of some outcome or other, by some criteria or other. In Propertarianism, I’ve tried to provide an AMORAL (non-moral), logically and operationally articulated, empirically derived, means of deciding moral questions: the prohibition on the imposition of costs – a prohibition that MUST exist for cooperation to remain rational. To state this prohibition in positive terms we can say we require: “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality of the same criteria.” We can further express this requirement in law, as both the logical origin of all law, and the formal expression of that law as property rights where the scope of property is defined as property-en-toto; where property-en-toto is defined as accumulated capital of all forms that people will demonstrably defend and retaliate against impositions upon (enumerated on propertarianism.com), and where that capital was obtained by the same criteria. Propertarianism then, is the legal codification of the single necessary principle of rational cooperation. With it we can create nomocracy: Rule of Law, under the one law of rational cooperation. And it applies whether we resolve interpersonal disputes, or organize to construct commons. Propertarianism is expressible as the incremental, evolutionary suppression of parasitism (free riding) in all its forms, by the most immediate means possible: the organic, evolutionary, independent, rule of law, under the one principle (law) of anti-parasitism: the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against property-en-toto. Leaving no means of sustenance available except productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality. [D]oes Propertarianism take biological influences into account? The answer is yes. Both in ethics and in politics. One of the aspects I have tried to get across is that just as the market forms an information system that by way of prices provides us with information needed to serve ourselves by the service of others – to cooperate at vast scales – that our moral biases, and moral blindnesses, and rational justifications constitute a division of inter-temporal reproductive perception, cognition, negotiation, and labor. As such, voluntary excahgen between not only males and females, but voluntary exchange between progressives(feminine bias), libertarians(production bias), and conservatives(masculine tribal bias) are the only means by which to make full use of the information perceived by all. Each inter-temporal and moral specialization must specialize to gain expertise, but compromise to with other parts of the spectrum to obtain what their bias suggests to them. As such the market for commons must be divided as were the original houses into classes, and classes into genders, to reflect the biases of the groups. This is not to say we need representative government. It is only that no matter what means we use to make decisions on the provision of commons, whether direct, representative or economic, that monopoly decision making (majority rule) is not required, only the non-imposition of costs by the participants in the agreement and those who do not wish to participate in it. To facilitate negotiation it appears that criteria for joining one house or another is extremely useful. Although I suggest this be a virtual house, not a physical one. We are no longer limited by space and time in our communications. I hope this helped Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (1) Curt Doolittle – IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE…

  • Is Propertarianism Utilitarian?

    (worth repeating) ( h/t: Kyle Trotta ) [I]s Propertarianism Utilitarian? First, Propertarianism consists of multiple concepts: (a) Testimonial Truth. (b) Testimonialism: The unification of morality, philosophy, law and science under testimonial truth. (c) Propertarian Ethics and Politics: a universal language of ethics and politics. (d) Testimonial Classical Liberalism: the means of constructing institutions that produce commons – (because truth and consequential trust, is the reason westerners can produce such hyper-competitive commons.) (e) Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Western Aristocratic Group Evolutionary Strategy) We (meaning the people who advise me) felt that lumping everything under the single term ‘Propertarianism’ was simply easier. It’s easier to understand one name than five or six. So when we say ‘Propertarianism’ in the narrowest sense, its the formal logic of ethics and politics. When we use it casually, in the broader sense, we refer to the use of that formal logic to create aristocratic egalitarian political orders. Now, back to “Utilitarian”. When we say something is utilitarian, we mean that the decidability of moral questions is determined by the usefulness of some outcome or other, by some criteria or other. In Propertarianism, I’ve tried to provide an AMORAL (non-moral), logically and operationally articulated, empirically derived, means of deciding moral questions: the prohibition on the imposition of costs – a prohibition that MUST exist for cooperation to remain rational. To state this prohibition in positive terms we can say we require: “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality of the same criteria.” We can further express this requirement in law, as both the logical origin of all law, and the formal expression of that law as property rights where the scope of property is defined as property-en-toto; where property-en-toto is defined as accumulated capital of all forms that people will demonstrably defend and retaliate against impositions upon (enumerated on propertarianism.com), and where that capital was obtained by the same criteria. Propertarianism then, is the legal codification of the single necessary principle of rational cooperation. With it we can create nomocracy: Rule of Law, under the one law of rational cooperation. And it applies whether we resolve interpersonal disputes, or organize to construct commons. Propertarianism is expressible as the incremental, evolutionary suppression of parasitism (free riding) in all its forms, by the most immediate means possible: the organic, evolutionary, independent, rule of law, under the one principle (law) of anti-parasitism: the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against property-en-toto. Leaving no means of sustenance available except productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality. [D]oes Propertarianism take biological influences into account? The answer is yes. Both in ethics and in politics. One of the aspects I have tried to get across is that just as the market forms an information system that by way of prices provides us with information needed to serve ourselves by the service of others – to cooperate at vast scales – that our moral biases, and moral blindnesses, and rational justifications constitute a division of inter-temporal reproductive perception, cognition, negotiation, and labor. As such, voluntary excahgen between not only males and females, but voluntary exchange between progressives(feminine bias), libertarians(production bias), and conservatives(masculine tribal bias) are the only means by which to make full use of the information perceived by all. Each inter-temporal and moral specialization must specialize to gain expertise, but compromise to with other parts of the spectrum to obtain what their bias suggests to them. As such the market for commons must be divided as were the original houses into classes, and classes into genders, to reflect the biases of the groups. This is not to say we need representative government. It is only that no matter what means we use to make decisions on the provision of commons, whether direct, representative or economic, that monopoly decision making (majority rule) is not required, only the non-imposition of costs by the participants in the agreement and those who do not wish to participate in it. To facilitate negotiation it appears that criteria for joining one house or another is extremely useful. Although I suggest this be a virtual house, not a physical one. We are no longer limited by space and time in our communications. I hope this helped Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine Source: (1) Curt Doolittle – IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE…

  • IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE BIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES INTO ACCOUNT?

    IS PROPERTARIANISM UTILITARIAN? DOES IT TAKE BIOLOGICAL INFLUENCES INTO ACCOUNT?

    (worth repeating) ( h/t: Kyle Trotta )

    1) Is Propertarianism Utilitarian?

    First, Propertarianism consists of multiple concepts:

    (a) Testimonial Truth.

    (b) Testimonialism: The unification of morality, philosophy, law and science under testimonial truth.

    (c) Propertarian Ethics and Politics: a universal language of ethics and politics.

    (d) Testimonial Classical Liberalism: the means of constructing institutions that produce commons – (because truth and consequential trust, is the reason westerners can produce such hyper-competitive commons.)

    (e) Aristocratic Egalitarianism (Western Aristocratic Group Evolutionary Strategy)

    We (meaning the people who advise me) felt that lumping everything under the single term ‘Propertarianism’ was simply easier to understand one name, than five or six. So when we say ‘propertarianism’ in the narrowest sense, its the formal logic of ethics and politics. When we use it casually, in the broader sense, we refer to the use of that formal logic to create aristocratic egalitarian political orders.

    Now, back to “Utilitarian”. When we say something is utilitarian, we mean that the decidability of moral questions is determined by the usefulness of some outcome or other, by some criteria or other.

    In Propertarianism, I’ve tried to provide an AMORAL (non-moral), logically and operationally articulated, empirically derived, means of deciding moral questions: the prohibition on the imposition of costs – a prohibition that MUST exist for cooperation to remain rational.

    To state this prohibition in positive terms we can say we require: “productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of negative externality of the same criteria.”

    We can further express this requirement in law, as both the logical origin of all law, and the formal expression of that law as property rights where the scope of property is defined as property-en-toto; where property-en-toto is defined as accumulated capital of all forms that people will demonstrably defend and retaliate against impositions upon (enumerated on propertarianism.com), and where that capital was obtained by the same criteria.

    Propertarianism then, is the legal codification of the single necessary principle of rational cooperation. With it we can create nomocracy: Rule of Law, under the one law of rational cooperation. And it applies whether we resolve interpersonal disputes, or organize to construct commons.

    Propertarianism is expressible as the incremental, evolutionary suppression of parasitism (free riding) in all its forms, by the most immediate means possible: the organic, evolutionary, independent, rule of law, under the one principle (law) of anti-parasitism: the total prohibition on the imposition of costs against property-en-toto. Leaving no means of sustenance available except productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of negative externality.

    2) Does Propertarianism take biological influences into account?

    The answer is yes. Both in ethics and in politics.

    One of the aspects I have tried to get across is that just as the market forms an information system that by way of prices provides us with information needed to serve ourselves by the service of others – to cooperate at vast scales – that our moral biases, and moral blindnesses, and rational justifications constitute a division of inter-temporal reproductive perception, cognition, negotiation, and labor.

    As such, voluntary exchange between, not only males and females, but voluntary exchange between progressives(feminine bias), libertarians(production bias), and conservatives(masculine tribal bias) are the only means by which to make full use of the information perceived by all.

    Each inter-temporal and moral specialization must specialize to gain expertise, but must also compromise with other parts of the spectrum to obtain what their bias suggests to them.

    As such the market for commons must be divided as were the original houses into classes, and classes into genders, to reflect the biases of the groups. This is not to say we need representative government. It is only that no matter what means we use to make decisions on the provision of commons, whether direct, representative or economic, that monopoly decision making (majority rule) is not required, only the non-imposition of costs by the participants in the agreement and those who do not wish to participate in it.

    To facilitate negotiation it appears that criteria for joining one house or another is extremely useful. Although I suggest this be a virtual house, not a physical one. We are no longer limited by space and time in our communications.

    I hope this helped

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-06-08 02:52:00 UTC

  • Yes. We *Can* Demand People Warranty Their Statements for Truthfulness.

    CURT—“Why can’t we demand that people warranty the truthfulness of their statements?”—

    RICHARD—“because truth is determined, if at all, by debate and testing, and what cannot be stated while untested is unlikely to receive the scrutiny needed to determine its truth or falsity.”—

    [T]his is not true. TRUTHFULNESS, in all walks of life, not only in the physical sciences, is the result of performance of due diligence: criticism of our testimony. The act of laundering imagination, fantasy, bias, error and deception from our testimony. Justification is false. There are no non-trivial complete premises. We can criticize our extant understanding as thoroughly as possible, but we can never know if we are informationally complete.

    Testimony is unnatural to man. Which is why westerner’s are unique in its construction as a norm: it’s prohibitively expensive.
    Analytic truth (the case you use in your statement above), is impossible to know for other than tautological and trivial statements.

    —”No, I was on about the truth of assumptions about the external facts.

    But mere honesty is not truthfulness in any case.

    My guess is that you have no clear idea even of what analytic truth means, Curt. “—-

    —-David McDonagh mcdonagh_d@yahoo.co.uk

    1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error.

    2) Truthfulness exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit, and that one has performed due diligence against imagination, bias and error.

    3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that complete.

    4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context).

    REGARDING SNARKY DAVIDISM
    –”…what analytic truth means”–

    What meaning people normatively derive from the term, and what meaning (content) is necessary for the term to correspond to the testimony given using it, are two different things. So, on order to put forth a substantive criticism – you would actually have to put forward a criticism. 😉

    But in an effort to assist you in your journey: the word ‘is’ must refer to existence if one is not engaging in conflation; and ‘truth’ can only exist as testimony (promise). Any other use of the term ‘true’ is an analogy that we must test for internal consistency given the context of its use.

    “The ball is red” = “Having observed the ball, I promise you that if you observe the ball, you will also perceive that it appears red.”
    This is the only existentially possible operational definition. “The ball Is red” is an expression of verbal brevity.
    OR more generally “is” = “I promise that subject to the same observations you will percieve what I testify that you will”

    So:
    –” I was on about the truth of assumptions about the external facts.”–
    is an excellent example of how the term truth is misused.

    Translates to (and can only translate to):
    “I was talking about the degree of criticism I had performed in my due diligence of my premises, and therefore the scope of diligence I must perform upon my deductions from those premises”.

    As far as I know I am one of the best people living and working on this subject.

    Cheers.

    DEFINITIONS: TRUTH, TRUTHFULNESS, AND HONESTY http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/ DUE DILIGENCE 

    NECESSARY FOR WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/due-diligence-necessary-f…/

  • Yes. We *Can* Demand People Warranty Their Statements for Truthfulness.

    CURT—“Why can’t we demand that people warranty the truthfulness of their statements?”—

    RICHARD—“because truth is determined, if at all, by debate and testing, and what cannot be stated while untested is unlikely to receive the scrutiny needed to determine its truth or falsity.”—

    [T]his is not true. TRUTHFULNESS, in all walks of life, not only in the physical sciences, is the result of performance of due diligence: criticism of our testimony. The act of laundering imagination, fantasy, bias, error and deception from our testimony. Justification is false. There are no non-trivial complete premises. We can criticize our extant understanding as thoroughly as possible, but we can never know if we are informationally complete.

    Testimony is unnatural to man. Which is why westerner’s are unique in its construction as a norm: it’s prohibitively expensive.
    Analytic truth (the case you use in your statement above), is impossible to know for other than tautological and trivial statements.

    —”No, I was on about the truth of assumptions about the external facts.

    But mere honesty is not truthfulness in any case.

    My guess is that you have no clear idea even of what analytic truth means, Curt. “—-

    —-David McDonagh mcdonagh_d@yahoo.co.uk

    1) Honesty exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit – but not free of imagination, ignorance, bias, and error.

    2) Truthfulness exists (and can only exist) as warranty that one’s testimony is free of deceit, and that one has performed due diligence against imagination, bias and error.

    3) Truth (Analytic Truth) exists (and can only exist) as a definition of a Truthful statement that complete.

    4) Tautology exists (and can only exist) two statements that are identical in informational content for a given precision (context).

    REGARDING SNARKY DAVIDISM
    –”…what analytic truth means”–

    What meaning people normatively derive from the term, and what meaning (content) is necessary for the term to correspond to the testimony given using it, are two different things. So, on order to put forth a substantive criticism – you would actually have to put forward a criticism. 😉

    But in an effort to assist you in your journey: the word ‘is’ must refer to existence if one is not engaging in conflation; and ‘truth’ can only exist as testimony (promise). Any other use of the term ‘true’ is an analogy that we must test for internal consistency given the context of its use.

    “The ball is red” = “Having observed the ball, I promise you that if you observe the ball, you will also perceive that it appears red.”
    This is the only existentially possible operational definition. “The ball Is red” is an expression of verbal brevity.
    OR more generally “is” = “I promise that subject to the same observations you will percieve what I testify that you will”

    So:
    –” I was on about the truth of assumptions about the external facts.”–
    is an excellent example of how the term truth is misused.

    Translates to (and can only translate to):
    “I was talking about the degree of criticism I had performed in my due diligence of my premises, and therefore the scope of diligence I must perform upon my deductions from those premises”.

    As far as I know I am one of the best people living and working on this subject.

    Cheers.

    DEFINITIONS: TRUTH, TRUTHFULNESS, AND HONESTY http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/05/29/definitions-truth/ DUE DILIGENCE 

    NECESSARY FOR WARRANTY OF TRUTHFULNESS http://www.propertarianism.com/…/due-diligence-necessary-f…/

  • Propertarianism Completes The Wilsonian Synthesis.

    [P]hilosophy, Science, Morality, Law, Politics and Aesthetics are all unified. (I didn’t have such grand ambitions really. I just wanted to create a rational language of politics. )

  • Propertarianism Completes The Wilsonian Synthesis.

    [P]hilosophy, Science, Morality, Law, Politics and Aesthetics are all unified. (I didn’t have such grand ambitions really. I just wanted to create a rational language of politics. )

  • Scientific and Libertarian vs Mythical and Authoritarian: The Burden of Thought.

    (religious trigger warning) [K]ant understood the central value of the west was truth speaking.  But Kant was still a Christian – arguing in unscientific language of morality. He was not able to make the leap from truth to jury, law, science and economics. We face the same problem with Today’s Christians. Traditionalists often hold proper sensibilities and express them in the language of belief, rather than the language of institutions, incentives, law, and economics – the art of cooperation rather than totalitarianism that requires submission in all the monotheistic religions, and which demands we abandon truth in favor of useful analogy. What traditionalism requires is submission – and in exchange one gains freedom from the burden of perpetual calculation of events. The value of religion – still measurable today – is that it is increasingly valuable as intelligence decreases. And decreasingly valuable as intelligence increases. Religious authority obviates need for reason.  Truth, science and reason obviate the need for authority. So we really have two choices: we can have two systems of thought: scientific and mythical, while insisting that the mythical contain moral content only, with full knowledge that the scientific method is aristocratic and libertarian in construction and the mythical narrative is proletarian and authoritarian in construction. Or, we can suppress the reproduction of the lower classes and merely pay them off until there are so few left that their cost is below noise level. (Spoken as a Catholic myself.) Source: Curt Doolittle

  • Scientific and Libertarian vs Mythical and Authoritarian: The Burden of Thought.

    (religious trigger warning) [K]ant understood the central value of the west was truth speaking.  But Kant was still a Christian – arguing in unscientific language of morality. He was not able to make the leap from truth to jury, law, science and economics. We face the same problem with Today’s Christians. Traditionalists often hold proper sensibilities and express them in the language of belief, rather than the language of institutions, incentives, law, and economics – the art of cooperation rather than totalitarianism that requires submission in all the monotheistic religions, and which demands we abandon truth in favor of useful analogy. What traditionalism requires is submission – and in exchange one gains freedom from the burden of perpetual calculation of events. The value of religion – still measurable today – is that it is increasingly valuable as intelligence decreases. And decreasingly valuable as intelligence increases. Religious authority obviates need for reason.  Truth, science and reason obviate the need for authority. So we really have two choices: we can have two systems of thought: scientific and mythical, while insisting that the mythical contain moral content only, with full knowledge that the scientific method is aristocratic and libertarian in construction and the mythical narrative is proletarian and authoritarian in construction. Or, we can suppress the reproduction of the lower classes and merely pay them off until there are so few left that their cost is below noise level. (Spoken as a Catholic myself.) Source: Curt Doolittle