• Propertarianism
    • Propertarianism For Libertarians, by Eli Harman
    • What is Propertarianism?
    • Overview of Propertarianism
    • The Courses on Propertarianism
    • Revolution
    • Glossary
  • Media
  • Reading List
  • About
  • Contact
  • Login

Propertarianism

~ The Philosophy of Western Civilization in Scientific Terms

Propertarianism

Monthly Archives: December 2015

This Week’s Aspie Post: The Process Of Maturing Your Mind

24 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

[T]HIS WEEK’s ASPIE POST
Aspies tend to love everyone. The difficulty in empathizing, common rejection, and desire for connection with others makes all successful connections more enjoyable. The hard part to manage comes in three:

1) It’s hard to find relations since listening to others most of their language consists of signals we consider either meaningless, tedious or confusing. So you must learn patience to listen and try to ask about how and why people feel the way they do. Most of us understand spoken emotions. Meanwhile the autistic impulse tries to control you into avoiding exactly what you are trying to accomplish. This is why ssri’s are so effective: they dull the impulse and allow you to practice building the strength of will over the autistic impulse. Social anxiety disorder is controlled by the same means. We must see the autism spectrum as excess in-uterine suppression of the growth of the self. And that we must assist the growth of the self to compensate. We tend to think as engineers today rather than gardeners and foresters. The mind is constructed more like a tree and some artful bonsai may be needed.

2) It is easy to alienate relations via over sharing minutia fascinating to the autistic mind because system-thought provides constant touch stones amidst sensory chaos in socially and emotionally dense environments. So developing self monitoring is necessary and it’s very hard work. Again the problem is severity: some of us are weakly affected and can rely on will. Others more so and require help in training. Others need chemical assistance to suppress the autistic impulse. And some of us lack sufficient self to imagine the very idea of self monitoring – and it is those people that are non functional.

3) Once you mature having not experienced all the “silly” distractions of normal minds, you can gain this sense of superiority that comes with expertise in anything, and you can lose your desire to engage with (boring, dull, stupid) normals. This requires acceptance that only comes with age: normals have different feelings and needs and they usually fail to mature intellectually as far as we do – or rather they stop maturing at much earlier ages. So the only technique I have developed is love. I keep working a problem in my head in order to keep the big black scary machine busy, and I merely enjoy the company of people like a warm bath or sunny day. But what has surprised me is that simple and good people do not engage in as much signaling with false intellectualism. So I prefer the company of common people for my emotional health, and the company of competitive and intellectual people for my mental health.

So how do we socialize? The trick for us is to develop something we can share with others that is interesting. So that we are valuable to the conversation.

My strategy is to seek to help everyone I encounter in some small way. This usually involves getting to know them while looking for some opportunity to assist.

And in that act of inquiry I show interest in others: seeking to understand, not to agree.

That’s my lesson for this week to aspies.

Advertisements

Rate this:

Psychologizing: The Great Pseudoscientific Deceit

24 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

[O]nce you learn propertarianism’s basic principles: acquisition, property en toto, inventory, transaction cost, opportunity cost, cooperation, suppression of free riding, reproductive strategy and group evolutionary strategy, and all speech as negotiation for acquisition, you replace totalitarian Freudian psychology and cosmopolitan sociology with universal amoral, unloaded, rational incentives.

And when you do that you see all psychologism get as a vast language of deception and manipulation for encouraging parasitism and consumption.

Humanity like all other creatures exists in the physical universe, and has evolved the means of estimating the future and acting to change it, capturing the difference for his benefit.

The only ‘shame’ is theft. The only oath, not to steal.

Rate this:

The Silver Rule: Cooperation. The Golden Rule: Buying Options On Cooperation

24 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

[T]HE SILVER RULE IS THE ORIGIN OF COOPERATION

THEFT
The only ‘shame’ is theft. The only oath, not to lie, cheat, steal or impose harm.

The summary of this ethic is: “Do not unto others as you would not want done unto you.” The anglo saxons were right and the Christians wrong.

MORALITY (RULE OF COOPERATION)
The silver rule is necessary for cooperation. The golden rule buys options on future cooperation – but encourages parasitism.

ACQUIRE
We act upon that which we have acquired without imposition of costs upon that which others have acquired by doing the same.

COOPERATE
We act in concert to voluntarily produce common goods and services.

WARRANTY
We warranty the truthfulness of our speech by due diligence in the cleansing of error, bias, imagination, wishful thinking, and deceit from our speech.

INSURE
We insure one another against the imposition of costs by collective suppression of free riding by collective prosecution of those who impose costs upon others.

INVEST
We invest in the construction of commons for the production of returns, and we deny one another the ability to impose costs upon them.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Rate this:

Kudos, and A Question: “Do You Identify With the Label Alt-Right, or New Right?”

24 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in The New Right

≈ Leave a comment

Hi Curt,
I wanted to let you know I discovered you and your work after listening to your appearance on The Right Stuff. Very interesting episode that stands out from the rest. I have never had much interest in libertarianism (I came from a left wing anarchist background) but I find all the material coming out of the propertarian institute to be incredibly lucid, coherent, articulate, and enlightening. I have watched a lot of your videos and read the posts you make and find the arguments you make to be salient in a way that is not typically found in discussions in the alt-right strata, or anywhere else for that matter. I’m curious if you would identify with the label of “alternative or new right” ? — Chris Jones

[T]hanks Chris. You made my day.

And it matters to me a great deal when I get these posts and messages. While in the past year or two I’ve been gaining popularity, and comprehensibility, I worked for many years to develop propertarianism as an amoral scientific language of ethics, morality and politics. And to do it, I worked hard to make enough money that I could afford to do it. And sometimes, when tired, overwhelmed, or subject to passionate criticism I wondered if it was worth it – the cost was my health, my marriage, and most of my wealth. So every compliment you folks give me is something I cherish.

Propertarianism should evolve to replace psychology, ethics, sociology, morality, and politics the way reason eclipsed mysticism. I believe I have corrected the pseudosciences of the 19th century, and completed the enlightenment transformation from mysticism to rationalism by the transformation of rationalism to science.

Now, as for how I consider myself, I consider myself an Aristocratic Egalitarian, or as we would say in common language “Conservative Libertarian”. What I share with the NRx movement is agreement that the Cathedral Complex has replaced the Aristocracy and Church, and done so at great harm to our people. What I share with the Alt Right is the disdain for the Cathedral Complex’s use of pseudoscience, propaganda, and the institutionalization of lying in its attempt to reinvent christian mysticism as a universal heresy we call democratic socialist secular humanism. What I share with both movements is a recognition that the enlightenment project has failed because it has resulted in the Cathedral Complex and the destruction of western civilization.

How I differ is in defining causes, and seeking actionable solutions rather than offering criticisms. I realize that the west never wrote down its philosophy and religion, but practiced it as a tradition – as did our british-drudic ancestors, who were exterminated, and our aristocratic ancestors who were indoctrinated by the church – as did our aristocratic ancestors who have been indoctrinated by the Cathedral complex. And because of these losses we had no means of resistance against the cathedral complex. And the first conquest of the greco-roman west by the first great lie (babylonia/jewish/egyptian mysticism) was only saved by the reintroduction of aristotle (science). Just as in the current era, the second great lie (pseudoscience and lying) – both Jewish inventions. Both propagated by women and slaves (underclasses). And so in both eras jews invented great lies, that appeal to women and spread tot he underclasses as a means of destroying our civilization.

The question is, since we cannot return the clock to the past, how do we innovate, rather than regress? We can write a bible of sorts (a canon of law) and we can reform our cult (religion of intergenerational pedagogy) and we can reform our government (means of producing commons) so that THE GREAT LIES can no longer be used by women and slaves (the underclasses) to destroy our civilization.

Yarvin is a jewish continental, Hoppe a german rationalist, and I am an anglo empiricist. We all carry our traditions in the physical structures of our brains. But just as the greeks brought us out of ignorance with science, and the british brought us out of mysticism with science, we can bring ourselves out of pseudoscience and deceit with science. And use that science to construct institutions that satisfy the needs of the human animal while limiting our collective desire to harm, lie, cheat, steal, and conspire rather than engage in productive activities.

Thank you for the support. And please stay with me on our journey. smile emoticon

Hugs
Curt

Rate this:

The Epistemology of Entrepreneurial Evolution

24 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

[T]HE THEORETICAL HIERARCHY OF ORGANIZATIONAL EVOLUTION
(useful idea)
4 – LAW: Customers, Brand, Channels, and Income Stream, Predictability
3 – THEORY: Innovation (business model), Investment, Possibility
2 – HYPOTHESIS: Talent, Effort, Searching For A Business Model
1 – FREE ASSOCIATION: Idea (Free Association)

All human endeavors follow this principle just as most physical evolutionary organisms follow the “fibonacci, golden ratio, nautilus” sequence.

The evolution of business is no different from the evolution of any other field of knowledge except that time is one’s enemy, competition is brutal, and testing is ever-present and inescapable.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Rate this:

Women Have No More Place In Politics and War Then Men In Childbearing and Midwifery

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

[M]en have had a much harder time taming women’s irrationality and impulsivity than they have their own.

We kill off troublesome men. We just constrain troublesome women.

We spent tends of thousands of years incrementally suppressing male behavior while merely containing female behavior.

But we turned the ballot box into Pandora’s box and let loose all the evils in the world.

Men have no more place in midwifery and nursery than women have in politics and war.

Rate this:

The First Form Of Capital: Time And Violence

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized, Violence

≈ 1 Comment

(very important)

[T]ime is amoral. It is put either to good ends or bad.
Violence is amoral. It is either put to good ends or bad.
Money is amoral. It is either put to good ends or bad.
Law is amoral. It is put to either good ends or bad.
Action is amoral. It is put to either good ends or bad.

Violence is however, the first capital upon which all other capital is constructed and preserved. If you lack violence-capital, lack legal capital, lack economic capital, and lack territorial capital, you lack cultural capital, and lack genetic capital.

The origin of wealth is not trade, it is violence used to prohibit non trade.

Rate this:

I Don’t Want To Disenfranchise Anyone

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

[A] market for consumer goods and a market for commons both benefit from producers and consumers.

But I am an Aspie. I hate conflict. I don’t shun from it. That would be immoral. But I hate it none the less. I grew up in an environment so horrible that no one would envy it. And my dream world consists of one in which we compete but there is no conflict.

And our current governmental structure, which evolved to suit middle class merchants and agrarians who needed to find a way to allocate scarce resources in order to create necessary commons, is completely inadequate for an era in which the American empire consists of various regions and subcultures put into conflict by constant social engineering – the only purpose of which appears to maintain the bureaucracy and american international military power.

We can make a better world.

Truth, Contract, Market Government, Regionalism.

Rate this:

Actually, I’m Not An Atheist

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

(important piece) (on the existence of gods)

—“You’re one of my favorite Catholic Atheists”—

[W]ell, thank you.

Although, while a scientist, I am not an atheist. I am just what is called a Naturalist, and not a Supernaturalist. I understand that Gods exist. They exist as numbers exist. If I was an atheist you wouldn’t catch me praying (talking to god) regularly. Which I do. Often. I just have a very esoteric concept of the nature of a god’s existence. And I separate the existence of gods from primitive notions of religion.

I am not sure what the difference is between a supernaturally existential deity, and a worldwide knowledge of socrates, or a regional knowledge of a saint, or a local knowledge of ancestors, and praying to the knowledge of that personality, and those memories, for love, support, advice, and counsel.

For various reasons I am fairly certain prayer ‘works’. I am fairly certain gods ‘work’. I am fairly certain that gods, ritual, and prayer are a competitive advantage. And whether one chooses to explain away all of this scientifically as psychology, or accept it metaphysically, or embody it supernaturally, is merely a function of one’s abilities, biases, and preferences.

As far as I know gods exist as numbers exist, and gods ‘work’ for the same reason numbers work. There are consequences to the existence and use of numbers that transcend human abilities to perceive and conceptualize. If you construct various axioms, the resulting patterns can be rich sources of information – especially when combined with new experiences. If you construct stories of gods, heroes and saints there is no difference. So as far as I know, the study of gods, heroes and saints literally reconstructs them in your mind, and you can ask them questions if you learn how. It is even more useful to do the same with one’s ancestors since you carry not only those ideas but their genes, and the biases and benefits that they passed down to you.

Our ancestors thought in physicality or spirituality because they did not have the concept of INFORMATION that is the model we use today to understand the physical world. And it is INFORMATION that economists, philosophers and behaviorists such as myself use as the model for describing the human world, and not spirituality or physicality.

I have no idea if information in my head, yours, and others, interacts in some quantum fashion. I can’t state it one way or the other. I suspect that if it does it is so subtle that it is only accessible to us in periods of self honesty. But if in fact the information in our heads creates synchronicity when we are subject to similar stimuli then that would produce an equal effect. So either way it is irrelevant. It just works. And group prayer or ritual would construct new axioms and biases and produce similarly synchronous knowledge in all of us.

Now religion – as in a ritualistic group gathering – is something else altogether because the repetition of ritual, the submission to the throng, and the gregariousness we fell to the pack, all of which are present in the church or temple, produces a profound feeling of safety similar to that felt by our animal cousins when running with the herd or pack. It is this feeling we call ‘spiritual’ or ‘submission’: it’s a mild euphoria that spiritualists seek to amplify through practice. And it is one of the most universal and desired feelings of mankind.

Combining this experience of mild euphoria with knowledge of gods, heroes and saints produces a form of honesty within the self that we cannot produce by other means. It is this clarity or honesty that gives religions their power. We can, if we pray, or contemplate, use the mythological structure of information, along without our existing knowledge, to find solutions – too seek and obtain answers as ‘insights’. And at worst we can find comfort in the throng. (Which we now overload with consumption until we realize it is meaningless, and that we have been deceived – if not drugged – by commercial information.)

As yet we do not know how to produce the same effect as religion and prayer by any other means. I suspect I know how to do it. The question is whether it is possible to provide sufficient incentive to train enough people to do it to cause a reformation of the methods by which we teach every generation the Christian Discipline of Love into something more modern. I struggle with this problem and it’s probably the hardest problem I’ve tried to solve.

And that’s saying something…..

Rate this:

Paternalism and Classism, But Not Racism

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

[I]f you adopt paternalism: that your kin are an extended family, and that you will work with other extended families to cooperate non-parasitically with all other extended families, and that we produce nations not states, then you get this wonderful ability for us to religion, culture, race, class and caste.

We struggle with a certain problem: that while small nations are better for the development of community and mutual insurance, large states are materially valuable for the conduct of war and less so for trade bargaining. But once we have nuclear weapons it is very hard to violate borders without committing suicide. So there appears to be no reason for large states other than aggressive warfare.

And yes, some territory is objectively better than other territory. And some genes are objectively better than other genes. And we start from different levels of development.

But states are as much a barrier to development as they are to improvement precisely because of scale. Scale increases the ability to engage in corruption. With scale we find anonymity. With anonymity we have informational asymmetry. With informational asymmetry we have opportunity for corruption (privatization of commons).

So you know, I’m a CLASSIST, in that i recognize the problem of carrying a large and counterproductive underclass, but I am not a RACIST in that I want all groups to transcend the animal, become fully human, and evolve into what we imagine as gods.
And its possible. We had it right. Unfortunately we blew it. And now we have to fix it.

Rate this:

Propertarian Class Structures

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

[P]ROPERTARIAN CLASS STRUCTURES

(draft)(note that education is a commercial class)

Martial Class (suppression of parasitism)
—Kings and Generals
—Knights(professionals), Soldiers
—Judges, and Sherriffs

Commons Class (Construction of Commons)
—Infrastructure Institutions
—Civic Organizations
—Beauty and Maintenance
—Disaster Services

Insurer Class (Insurance)
—Priesthood and Intellectuals
—Insurers, and Insurers of last resort
—Medicine and Nursing
—Mothering and Child Care
—Elder Care
—Poor Care

Commercial Class (organization and execution of production)
—Major Corporate Alliances
—Finance, Banking
—Business and Entrepreneurship
—Distribution and Trade

Producer Classes
—Calculators
——Scientists (discover)
——Engineers (build)
——Programmers (instruct)
——Accountants (measure)
——Project Managers (time)
—Artist Class
…
—Labor Class
…
—Dependent Class (incapable of engaging in goods and service production)
…
—Out of Sight Class (incapable of engaging in commons production)
…
Criminal Class (forcing costs on commons and production)
…

Rate this:

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Eli Harman

One of Robert Axelrod’s findings from studying iterated prisoner’s dilemma competitions (“The Evolution of Cooperation”) is that the standard “tit for tat” strategy can be improved upon by adding an element of forgiveness, to break otherwise insoluable and never-ending patterns of recrimination. Clinging steadfastly to vengeance as an aim, when peace and cooperation are within reach, is an example of the sunk cost fallacy.

Quite simply, our parents and grandparents could afford a lot of folly that we cannot, now that they have squandered our inheritance on empty signaling.

Rate this:

The Source of Difference Between Center and West

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

—[M]uslims everywhere (or rather i should say most Muslims i have encountered) do not accept the logical and normative distinction that western philosophy effectuates between the truth-value of statements and the origin of those statements. This is the true nexus of the conflict between Islam and the West. It is a real conflict with stunning consequences.—-Ayelam Valentine Agaliba

Rate this:

The Principle of Exchange Makes Philosophy Much Easier

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

[P]olitical Philosophy is a lot easier when you just start from the premise that all goods are hypothetical, all bads are not, and that the only means of accumulating the knowledge to determine good from bad is exchange. This eliminates the fallacy that any of us know what is in fact good for all, other than institutions that allow us to choose any possible good but prohibit us from pursuing any known bad are a de facto good by prohibiting bads.

This is contrary to human cognition because we evolved for negotiating cooperation not truth telling. It is contrary to human desire, because we desire consensus. It is contrary to political incentive because it limits political power.

We all think we are ‘right’. But the only ‘right’ we can know is trade. Just as the only way we know whether we engaged in production or engaged in waste, consumption, or entertainment, is if others trade for what we create.

Information and volition tell us what ‘right and wrong’ do not.

Rate this:

The Pentatuch, Bible, and Constitution?

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

[T]here is very little difference between the negotiated construction of the Pentateuch, or the Bible, and the American Constitution: they were the product of committees constructing the criteria for civil law. This is quite contradictory to the Indo European Tradition in which law EVOLVES.

But these things are constructs of man for the purpose of governing man.

Rate this:

Who Invented The Big Lie?

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

[W]e start with Zoroaster who is the first philosopher.

—“Zoroaster sees the human condition as the mental struggle between aša (truth) and druj (lie). The cardinal concept of aša—which is highly nuanced and only vaguely translatable—is at the foundation of all Zoroastrian doctrine, including that of Ahura Mazda (who is aša), creation (that is aša), existence (that is aša) and as the condition for free will.
The purpose of humankind, like that of all other creation, is to sustain aša. For humankind, this occurs through active participation in life and the exercise of constructive thoughts, words and deeds.
Elements of Zoroastrian philosophy entered the West through their influence on Judaism and Middle Platonism and have been identified as one of the key early events in the development of philosophy.[32] Among the classic Greek philosophers, Heraclitus is often referred to as inspired by Zoroaster’s thinking.[33]
In 2005, the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy ranked Zarathustra as first in the chronology of philosophers. Zarathustra’s impact lingers today due in part to the system of rational ethics he founded called Mazda-Yasna. The word Mazda-Yasna is avestan and is translated as “Worship of Wisdom” in English. Zoroastrians later educated the Greeks, who used a similar term, philosophy, or “love of wisdom,” to describe the search for ultimate truth.
Zoroaster emphasized the freedom of the individual to choose right or wrong and individual responsibility for one’s deeds. This personal choice to accept aša or arta (the divine order), and shun druj (ignorance and chaos) is one’s own decision and not a dictate of Ahura Mazda. For Zarathustra, by thinking good thoughts, saying good words, and doing good deeds (e.g. assisting the needy or doing good works) we increase this divine force aša or arta in the world and in ourselves, celebrate the divine order, and we come a step closer on the everlasting road to being one with the Creator. Thus, we are not the slaves or servants of Ahura Mazda, but we can make a personal choice to be his co-workers, thereby refreshing the world and ourselves.”—-

You will note that this is a pretty indo-european, indo-iranian, indo-hindu line of thinking. Yes it is magian. But he has no other method of expressing the ideas as ultimate goods.

THE EVOLUTION OF THE BIG LIE

There is a very big difference between “You Shall Worship One God”, “There is One Supreme God”, and “Only One God Exists”.

There is a big difference between ‘the creator’s truth’, as the only available means of expression of truthful correspondence (and living a good life by personal action), and the assertion that god exists and we must obey him (authoritarianism).

There is a big difference between the variable oral tradition of mythical gods and the invariable written tradition of supernaturally existential gods.

So how did we get from the search for truth to The Big Lie?

Who invented the Big Lie?

—” Pentateuch was composed in the Persian period (roughly 520–320 BCE), as a result of tensions between the Jewish landowners who had stayed in Judah during the Babylonian captivity and claimed Abraham as the “father” through whom they traced their right to the land, and the returning “Priestly” exiles who based their claim to dominance on Moses and the Exodus tradition.”—

The Big Lie was invented to lay a claim to land.

Moses and Abraham appear to be entirely fictional characters, used to justify the retention of property in Judea.

A big lie repeated often and proudly eventually appears as truth. The cost of chanting pays for the investment in belief.
The big lies worked (voice of god) in the ancient world (babylon and Judah), they worked in the roman empire (christianity), they worked in the modern world (Marx, Boaz, Freud, and to a lesser degree Cantor, Mises, Rothbard).

And reached culmination with Humanism(universalism), Postmodernism(social and verbal construction of reality), Feminism (that man is evil), Democracy(that majority possesses wisdom).

We cure the big lies with truth.

Over and over again.

Rate this:

Evolution of Various Technologies of Cooperation

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

[T]he Technologies of Cooperation

1) Tribal Hunter Gatherer -> Steppe/Desert -> Agrarian -> Urban -> (Slum?)
2) Headman -> Chieftain -> King -> President/Prime Minister -> (Judge?)
3) Memory -> Oral Tradition -> Written -> Printing -> Media -> (Digital Records?)
4) Norm -> Religion -> Law -> Credit -> (Digital Reputation?)
5) Spiritualism-> Mythos-> Religion-> Reason -> Pseudoscience -> Science -> Truth
6) Animism-> Polytheism-> Monotheism-> Reason-> PseudoScientism-> Trade.
7) Property -> Barter -> Money -> Interest and Credit -> Fiat Money -> (Baskets?)
8) Property -> Wealth -> Partnerships -> Banks -> Central Banks -> ( stocks?)
9) Pairing-Off -> Counting -> Recording -> Balanced Accounting -> Financialization -> (?)
10) Tribal -> Serial -> Poly -> Paternal -> Traditional -> Nuclear -> (Individual?)

Rate this:

Q&A: The Bicameral Mind?

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

—“Q: I came to be aware [of] Julian Jaynes’ thesis materials. Seems to jive with your theme, Curt. You alluding to a similar theme when referencing the Pentateuch, or the Bible?”—Mark Palmer

[G]reat question Mark. Great Question.

Well, I don’t really agree with how Jaynes is stating it, but I agree that the ‘separateness’ of the mind, and it’s self criticism, is a fairly recent invention in human history. You can see it if you talk to native americans and unexposed south american indians. Their distinction between the dream world and the rational (self critical) world is not bifurcated. It took me a while to understand this. They’re also far less verbally capable. So I suspect that the evolution of language and the evolution of the mind from from intuition are produced by the same evolutionary consequences.

I mean women are definitely unable to control the noise in their heads as well as men are – this is the difference in our operating methods. I’d have a nervous breakdown if I had to be a woman for a day.

Well, I’m trying to make the statement that the both the hebrew and the christian-greek-roman bible were constructed by means very similar to the construction of the constitution.

But why is there such a difference between the content of archaic religion and the content modern of law? Or between the regulation of the roman empire, and the regulation of women, slaves, and the masses of mediterranean poor?

The difference is PROPERTY. The asset of poor people is charity and cooperation. The asset of propertied people is property.
Religion for regulation of norms (opportunity and insurance) and law for regulation of property (physical things).

So what does that mean for our future? I think I have that figured out. But I want to eliminate the artificial distinction between Law(aristocracy), Philosophy(middle class) and Religion(poor).

These technologies all serve the same purpose: regulation of classes.

Curt

Rate this:

Isn’t America a Germanic Not Just Anglo Country?

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in 1.2-Uniqueness, 1.4-Failure, 1.6-The Pattern of History

≈ 1 Comment

(important piece)

(I will write more on this later. But it will explain my emphasis on operationalism and strict construction)

[B]efore about 1830, when the British Empire adopted commercial universalism, Britain was a member of germanic, north sea, hanseatic, civilization.

We tend to compare our British ancestors to Today’s Britons who are heavily catholicized and franglicized, and certainly members of socialist cults of hyper signaling through quests for artificial moralism.

But the majority of anglo immigrants arrive before the civil war, and the majority of german immigrants before the second world war. And the majority of white americans trace their history to germanic origins.

Our warriors in our wars – all of them – are largely germanic. Our Teutons (warrior caste) have been our great leaders.

Our founders had far more in common with their german counterparts in pre-unification Germany, than they did with middle class and commercial victorian Britons. They may have spoken English. They may have learned French. They may have ridiculed the ‘backwardness’ of the Germans. But for all intents and purposes they were Germanic, Protestant, Hanseatic, North Sea peoples with germanic aspirations and germanic values. And because of its libertarian political structure, Hanseatic Civilization (of the north sea peoples) does not receive historical treatment that the statist era the destroyed it under napoleon, and with napoleon set the destruction of western civilization in motion.

The american states had more in common with the german principalities than they did with their British ancestors.

Our indoctrination into the ‘frame’ of war-making-nation-states obscures too much information from us. There is some truth that in the ancient, medieval, and modern worlds, there was an acknowledge conspiracy between today’s catholic(mediterranean trade) states that the germans be left alone so that they defended the frontier from the barbarians of the east. But we are a germanic people – a north sea people. Water ways determined evolution more so than land masses since it is waterways that provide routes for discounted conduct of trade.

The american civil war – over control of the continent with slavery as the excuse – and Lincoln’s destruction of the germanic states, and their conversion to Napoleonic centrality, was the second great tragedy of Europe. And the attempt to unify Europe under a federal government the third great tragedy.

We can now only struggle to overthrow the failed Enlightenment projects, and return to polycentrism which was the competitive cause of western political, military, and commercial innovation.

Scale increases the promise of mutual insurance in exchange for the stagnation and systemic parasitism that results from all organizational certainty. Only change and conflict strengthen (see Taleb), and certainty increases fragility.

So we can also state that libertarian sentiments of our anglo saxon ancestors were artificially protected just as the libertarian sentiments of our Icelandic and american ancestors. And that it is only our Scandinavian(middle ages) and Prussian(enlightenment) ancestors that held europe’s indo-european warrior traditions as central cultural values. (This is an uncomfortable truth that libertarians will have difficulty swallowing.)

America is a Germanic Country, Conquered by French Nation-statism, Invaded by The Second Great Jewish Lie of Pseudoscience, The Great Deceit of Postmodernism that followed, and saved only by the challenge of overcoming the nearly but not fully, strictly constructed Anglo Saxon Common Law. Hence my radically analytic pursuit of Truth, and Strict Construction (operationalism) so that it is possible to reform our ancient germanic polycentric government so that it cannot be changed by political means, can may only evolve methods of voluntary cooperation.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Rate this:

Q&A: “Curt, What Do You Think of The Alt Right Authors?”

23 Wednesday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in The New Right

≈ 1 Comment

—“I know that myself and others would be interested to read what you have to say about some big names on the alt right. I am assuming you are familiar with the work of the following: Jonathan Bowden, Guilliame Faye, Julius Evola, Alain DeBenoist.”—

[C]hris, (all)

Great Question Chris.

We can communicate using different technologies. Some of these technologies are nonsense, some are meaningful, some are preferable or not, and some are decidable or not. I work with the DECIDABLE. As such while there might be justification and wisdom in literary authors they do not produce social science that can be expressed as decidable law in matters of dispute between people of different interests.

The answer is that I consider all conservative work outside of law to be literary justification and perhaps intergenerational wisdom, but it’s not science or ‘true’ in the scientific sense, so I cannot use it.

Part of this problem is caused by the concept of monopoly that has been with us since our days as tribal hunter gatherers. It was hard to teach people to use markets – humans thought they might be immoral, and some groups still do. It is just as hard to teach people market government rather than monopoly government.

And these authors generally hold to monopoly thought. So they are of little or no use to me. Why? ‘Cause I know a lot of history. I don’t need it put into a moral narrative for me.

Does that mean I wouldn’t recommend them? Not at all.

The way to learn any subject is to find a Cliff Notes or Spark Notes version of the subject so that you can learn by association with what experiences you possess. I tell mothers and teachers that the best way to introduce a subject is through a children’s story or myth or fairy tale, then a biography, then a history, then SCIENCE. We need a path from our extant knowledge based upon experience, and new knowledge based upon layers of analogy to experience.

These authors provide an intuitionistic and experiential framing of the world which we can then use to recognize that a scientific statement provides explanatory power. So these authors are a gateway for most people. (although not me sorry to say).
I see the history of conservative and libertarian thought as an attempt at rational restatement of religious and cultural history, because they failed to discover the science behind their cultural and institutional evolution.

Since we have that science, now, and science has emerged as the universal language of attempted truth speaking, then I prefer to work with the science, rather than be distracted by what I consider largely literary justification mixed with fancy – even if there is truth there.

But that doesn’t mean there is no value in pedagogical evolution. There is. I just don’t consider it subject for debate or discussion because it’s not debatable, because it’s not scientific – it’s merely illustrative. And for the purpose of pedagogy illustration may be necessary prior to learning the science.

(As for Bowden he didn’t write anything that I would consider meaningful. My interest in him is novel curiosity: why did he have his nervous breakdown? Why do so many deep thinkers have them? Does it place unnatural stress on the mind and body to continually engage in interpreting reality by some model or other? A ‘model’ is a bit of an obscurant non-operational term. But it means that we have produced a set of general rules from construction of properties, categories, relations, commensurability, decidability and explanatory power. We might call such a model ‘a frame’ depending upon its level of completeness. )

I hope this helps.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev,

Rate this:

Creating a Moat Around Russia: Six Points Explaining Why Putin Is Acting Strategically

19 Saturday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Russia and Ukraine

≈ 1 Comment

[C]REATING A MOAT AROUND RUSSIA: SIX POINTS EXPLAINING WHY PUTIN IS ACTING STRATEGICALLY

SIX POINTS
1) The fall of Ukraine was unexpected and Putin feared a spread to Moscow. Rather than call up the USA or Merkel and offer to lease Crimea for 99 years with an option to renew, and offer to exchange the Donbas (The Don Basin) for a large discount on gas for the same period, he ‘flinched’ because of the fear that he would lose his only warm water port.

2) He did expect some difficulties from the west but not the severity of impact on the economy. This was surprising to him – and everyone else for that matter. He is painfully aware that the west could shut off financial transactions with Russia and that would cause the rest of the economy to collapse. While he can threaten to turn off the oil to the west, this hurts him far more than the west – who merely has to buy more expensive oil on the world market – whereas Russia rapidly runs out of money to conduct trade (and internal bribes).

3) Putin wants to restore Russia to peer status in the world. He saw his civilization collapse and it framed him forever. He is not alone. To do this requires that he monopolize the oil revenues so that he can manage the economy through payments (dependents) the way germans manage with duty, brits with morality, and americans with law. Russia does not share our high trust traditions and so he must run the country as a mafia state until he can mature the institutions sufficiently that he does not need to use 50% of revenues to buy influence in order to keep the country running. This is a job that is very difficult that is hard for westerners to understand. Russia is and always has been run as a mafia state – for the same reason souther Italy was run as a mafia state: because no one in or out of the administration was trustworthy.

4) Putin (correctly I believe) wants to provide his people (and the world) with an alternative to the ‘suicidal decadence’ of the democratic secular hedonistic west. Prior to ‘flinching’ in Ukraine, he was the most respected politician in the world. He can quite easily enfranchise the western right and accomplish that goal if he lets go of Ukraine. He may not see that Ukraine is forever gone – the people have turned against Russia forever. (I live here in Ukraine). And that Ukraine will want membership in both the EU and NATO and if not, then the eastern european countries will form an alternative to NATO.

5) He has a muslim problem greater than that of Europe and America, and worse yet, he depends on Chechen muslims to do much of his ‘dirty work’. So he is empowering enemies. His reason for acting in Syria is three fold: (a) he wants to kill off as many muslims as possible so that they don’t expand to Russia. (b) most maps don’t show this well, but most of the oil in the world that is profitable to take out of the ground is in a narrow region between the saudi Peninsula and the Barents sea. Now,it’s one thing if radical muslims hold the southern half of that territory, but not if they terrorize Russia and get hold of the northern half. (c) Russia has not been able *yet* to produce a diverse economy so he needs no to fight a world war with muslims over the oil fields when he is in weakened position.

6) Russia’s most severe problem is that it cannot develop businesses because as soon as they are profitable some member of the upper echelon steps in, drives it to near bankruptcy and then buys it for a song. This has become the most serious issue to the economy other than the permanent problem with rule of law. The problem of ‘modernizing’ Russia is very difficult and he has actually made pretty significant progress during his tenure.

PUTIN IS CONSISTENT
We must not misinterpret Putin’s actions in Ukraine as a strategy, rather than an act of panic at the possible loss of the manufacturing base of the Russian military (in the Donbas) and the only warm water port possessed by the Russian military (crimea).

Otherwise, Putin has a long term plan to create a traditional Russia by restoring the orthodox church, providing an impassable and state sponsored method of resisting islam,(400 new churches in Moscow alone), slowly reforming rule of law, and after the sanctions are lifted (they will be) using money to diversify the economy. (Russia cannot duplicate the Silicon Valley Model because of the low trust society and pervasive corruption, but it has the talent to do so. Russian psychology – skepticism, cunning, and pride – is very useful in the development of engineers.)

Putin is making sure that Russia is an island insulated from Islamic brutality and Western depravity. He is building a fortress of defense against threats to his people. A better example is that he is building an Ark that will survive the coming turmoils.

If you see it from this perspective, Putin is profoundly consistent, strategic and rational in the pursuit of his objectives.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Rate this:

The Templars Did It Right: Room And Board

19 Saturday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

[Y]OU SEE THE TEMPLARS HAD A GOOD DEAL: ROOM AND BOARD.

And you see ISIS doing the same.
And we see Ukrainian Volunteers dong the same.
And you saw american revolutionary soldiers doing it.
And you saw european soldiers throughout history do it.

The central problem of raising an army is not weapons, it is merely the money necessary to supply room and board for those men who prefer to fight for change rather than do whatever it is at their disposal.

If you ask men to bring a weapon, they will. But you must be able to feed, shelter, and direct them.

Once you have men and weapons, you have an army, and an army can take whatever it wants or needs. And by the act of merely taking, it disrupts the economy so significantly that little else need be done.

What the Islamists do well is (a) live on few resources, and (b) distribute money effectively through channels, and (c) make use of a vast surplus of men.

Western men are in surplus. Money, Distribution, and Communication are not complicated.

Moral authority. A set of Demands, A plan. Room and Board.

Simple men think in tactics. General think in logistics.

You see, the more advanced an economy, the more fragile it is.

Rate this:

I’m Not Trying To Start a Cult – But To Restore The West By Starting A War.

19 Saturday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

(from elsewhere)

I don’t understand Shaun.

I think people who have been following me for a few years know why I use FB and why I run all these “tests”. Maybe it isn’t obvious any longer. I construct theories. I test them. These theories are designed to help me understand what I don’t. So I will spend a year making some set of arguments until nothing new is coming back..Ad move on to another of the same. I worked my way through the libertarian. I worked through the nrx. i’m working through the alt-right – and I try to understand.

Along the way I need to pick up a few people who can construct arguments. That’s happening.

I am not trying to start a cult.

(i’m trying to create a plan to start a war)”

Rate this:

The Evolution Of Human Regulation

19 Saturday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

[E]VOLUTION OF METHODS OF REGULATION

1) RELIGION – threat of ostracization. (culture)
2) LAW – threat of punishment, loss of property or liberty. (state)
3) CREDIT – threat of loss of consumption. (suppliers)
4) SOFTWARE – threat of loss of opportunity. (friends)

Religion records your birth, promises, and deaths.
Law produces a history of your infractions.
Credit records a history of your impulsivity
Software records a history of your non-conformity.

You are always at the mercy of your neighbors. But every time population increases and with it anonymity, we develop a new means of constructing reputations in oder to ensure conformity.

(Fuk. And, I’m working at bringing it about… I’m gonna join the Mr Robot Society. )

Rate this:

The Evolution of Everything That Man Uses To Do Everything

19 Saturday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

(very important concepts) (important piece)

[W]eber was right, in that the evolution of civilization was achieved through improvements in various kinds of ‘calculation’ – a term which will not sufficiently convey the depth of importance or meaning to the uninitiated.

CALCULATION (ability to ‘think’ and plan)

– Perception, Comparison, Decidability, and Memory
We are somewhat aware of the vast leaps in Perception, Comparison, Decidability, and Memory: that arose from Writing, Numbers and Arithmetic, Accounting, Mathematics, Calculus, and Statistics (which are different disciplines).

– Planning (production)
Those of us who learn economics understand the institutions of Money, Prices, Credit, Interest, Banking, Bonds, Stocks, Financial Insurance, and how they assist us in cooperating at vast scales.

– Evolution and Equilibria (discovery)
And some of us are aware of the vast change in human thinking that arose from the concept of evolution (self organizing). This is not limited to biological evolution (information organization in equilibria), but also to economics(information organization in equilibria), but also to the evolution of scientific knowledge (information organization in equilibria) in which knowledge is that which survives from free association, to hypothesis, to theory, and to law;

– Existence (operational naming)
And I think fewer people are aware of the vast change in human thinking that arose from the act of programming (existential necessity), and database development (existential dependency),

– Truth (removal of imagination, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception)
and very very few of us are aware of my work in Truth (testimonial organization in equilibria) in which Truth is what survives criticism, and testimony a warranty of due diligence, not a warranty of truth itself, and ultimate truth merely the most parsimonious statement possible.

PRODUCTION OF REPRODUCTION
And some of us in familial organizations:
– State Enforced Individual Monetary Union (feminism)
– Nuclear Family, Egalitarian Nuclear
– Extended Family, Stem Family, Authoritarian Family
– Traditional Family, Communitarian Family
– Hetaeristic Monogamy
– Pairing Family, Serial Marriage
– Punaluan Family
– Consanguine Family

PRODUCTION OF ORGANIZATIONS OF PRODUCTION ITSELF
And some of us are aware of the evolution in productive organizations:
– Military Hierarchical (simple production)
– Bureaucratic Hierarchical (capital production)
– Professional (talent production)

PRODUCTION OF ORGANIZATIONS OF PRODUCING COMMONS
Some of us are aware of the vast difference in state organizations:
– Authoritarian Socialist Economy. ( Dysgenic – Minimize Holdings )
– Social Democratic Mixed Economy ( Dysgenic – maximize takings )
– Private Capitalistic Libertarian Economy (Eugenic – maximize holding)

WEAPONS OF INFLUENCE IN ORGANIZATION (reputations)
– Cooperation (ordinary cooperation in the process of production) (personal reputation in memory)
– Religion (normative promise) (demonstrated behavior) ostracization
– Law (criminal reputations) (writing and record keeping) Violence
– Credit (economic reputations) (computers) deprivation of consumption
– ‘Software Reputations’ (the most detailed yet – the internet) ???? (deprivation of relations)

DO YOU SEE THE PATTERN?
We already constitute the equivalent of a hive mind.
The problem for our collective consciousness is in reducing error.
And that error is the product of dysgenia.

Rate this:

Reframe The Debate: Conservative = Aristocratic

19 Saturday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

(reframe the debate)

WESTERN ‘CONSERVATISM’ = ‘ARISTOCRACY’ = ‘ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM’

[W]e must reframe the debate, swapping the word ‘Conservative’ for ‘Aristocratic’, and ‘progressive’ for ‘Socialistic’.

Aristocratic (paternal meritocratic) Egalitarian (open to all of merit who voluntarily take the oath not to steal.)

Rate this:

The Secrets of the West’s Success

19 Saturday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in 1.2-Uniqueness, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

(important piece)

[W]e can finally piece together the west’s struggle to ‘transcend’ the human animal, and to become our gods. Truth is the common thread.

THE SECRETS OF THE WEST’S SUCCESS:
AXIS 1) Militarism, Militia, Heroism, Truth,
AXIS 2) Sovereignty. Private Property, Voluntary Exchange, Contract
AXIS 3) Jury, Common Law, Rule of law & Universal Standing, Natural Law
AXIS 4) Debate, Reason, Philosophy, Logic, Science, Medicine
AXIS 6) Near Breeding Eugenics, Manorial Eugenics, Criminal Eugenics

CLASSES
The People Who Fight (defense – order) Aristocratic.
The People Who Farm (capital – production) Libertarian.
The People Who Gather (labor – consumption) Socialist.

THE CATASTROPHE’S
The Follies: Athenian/Spartan and Anglo/German civil wars.
The Plagues: i) Justinian / Arab ii) The Black Death
The Invasions: The demographic invasions of Greece, Of Rome, Of the Roman Empire, of Europe and Americas.
The Great Lies: i) Jewish Christianity, ii) Jewish Pseudoscience, iii) Islamism
The Great Losses: Arab and Turkish Conquests of The East , The Communist Revolution in Russia, Russian Conquest of Eastern Europe,

TECHNOLOGIES (undone)
1) Narrative, Writing, The Story, The Dramatic Play, The Novel, The Serial.
2) Counting, Positional Numbering, Arithmetic, Accounting, Computerized Accounting,
3) Mathematics (sets), Geometry (space), Calculus (relative change), Statistics (probability),
4) (physics)
5) (evolutionary biology)
6) (economics)
7) (truth) Syllogism, ..(correspondence).. Critical Rationalism, Testimonialism,
…

Rate this:

Teoría de los costos de transacción de gobierno

18 Friday Dec 2015

Posted by Alberto Zambrano in Alberto R Zambrano U, Español (Spanish)

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

español, propietarismo en español

Original article by Curt Doolittle : http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/12/11/the-transaction-cost-theory-of-government/

Translation by Alberto R. Zambrano U. 

[L]a historia dice que sólo el desarrollo de un estado – una burocracia monopolista- transfiere los altos costos locales de transacciones sin rentas centrales, a rentas estatales y bajos costos de transacciones. Los libertarios ignoran la evidencia de los costos de transacciones y el aprovechamiento injusto a un nivel local.
E ignoran aún más la demostrada necesidad de usar la violencia en forma organizada por una ente monopolio para suprimir aquellos costos de transacción y aprovechamiento injusto (“rentas locales”), y las convierten en rentas centrales de forma tal que se paga para dicha supresión.

El argumento es que los estados son, de hecho, un costo neutral y que nosotros no gastamos lo suficiente en ellos en la supresión de los costos de transacción, porque  los estados proveen múltiplos de retorno de esa supresión. Esto también es demostrable.

La pregunta no es lo que podemos hacer sin la presencia del estado (un corporación articulada como una definición monopolista de los derechos de propiedad), sino que una vez que hayamos suprimido los costos locales de transacción, y los hallamos reemplazado con rentas centralizadas para poder producir los bienes que llamamos “derechos de propiedad” – ¿cómo suprimimos las rentas centralizado toda vez que mantenemos suprimidos los costos de transacción y la habilidad de construir bienes que dicha supresión de los costos y rentas nos permita construir?

Discutir la definición de monopolio de los derechos de propiedad es de alguna forma “mala o incorrecta”, es irracional, ya que la propiedad, obtenida mediante el trabajo y el intercambio voluntario, bajo los requerimientos de productividad, garantía y simetría, es, hasta donde yo se, lógicamente consistente y las excepciones son operaciones matemáticas de números naturales. Así que la imposición de derechos de propiedad no puede ser ilógica, inmoral, no ética, sin importar la forma en la qu son impuestos ya que definen lo lógico, ético y lo moral.

No existe nada malo con la violencia – de hecho, es la violencia con la que pagamos por derechos de propiedad y libertad – es nuestro primer, y más importante recurso en la construcción de la libertad. En vez de ello, la pregunta es meramente institucional: ¿Habiendo usado la violencia para centralizar los costos de transacción en rentas, cómo usamos ahora la violencia para eliminar las rentas de la organización central?

Esto es bastante fácil: derechos universales de propiedad y derecho consuetudinario construido de forma orgánica, predicado sobre la base de que una ley de derechos de propiedad positivamente articulada sobre la prohibición y la supresión de transferencias involuntarias: la demanda de intercambios libres de exterioridad, productivos, garantizados y debidamente informados. Porque ésta es la única forma de cooperación que es racional, aquella que es debidamente informada, productiva, voluntaria y garantizada, en vez de su forma parasitaria. Y que la única cooperación racional es dejar a un lado la oportunidad que uno tiene de usar la violencia igualmente racional.
La pregunta entonces se convierte en ¿Quién prohíbe la formación de autoridad? y esto cae en la ciudadanía: -la milicia- aquellos que poseen el monopolio de la violencia.

Hasta donde yo se, éste es el análisis correcto de la evolución política, y la teoría correcta para la acción política a futuro.

Curt Doolittle.

Rate this:

Objective Good vs Subjective Preference

17 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

(the thrust of this argument is a conflation of good and preference, and my opponent’s presumption that because of that conflation there are no ‘goods’. This may be a bit hard to parse, but there are objective goods.)

[I] think it is that I simply failed to provide sufficient touch stones so that you would draw the conclusions on your own.
In other words the argument I make is a necessary one. And that is why it’s an is.

That might take a bit but we will get there.

—” I would add my surprise to see you mention at the end that this is all about how things are and not should be.”— Mark

I Think you’re referring to this statement:

—“(g) as far as I know I am explaining what men do (is), not what they should do (should).”—

Which in the context I mean that men do what they must do. what they must do is what they in fact do (“is”). And what they should do is what they must do, and do (“should”). In other words, there is no difference between must, can, is and should. Or better stated, “Man justifies his group evolutionary strategy, whatever it is – he survives.”

—“I see you started out apparently very much talking about good/bad in a thread on political views necessarily based on moral views. So…?”—

So instead I am stating that moral principles necessary for in-group cooperation and are universal necessities (subject to limits), and that despite local variation in the portfolio of norms necessary for the purposes of competition, production, free rider prevention, and rent seeking, that must, can, is, and should are identical propositions.
The only question is cooperation between groups with different portfolios that are incompatible. In compatibility is universally decidable by property rights independent of local variation in the portfolio. And this also is what we see men do in reality.
So objective morality – rules necessary for rational beneficial voluntary cooperation – is universal.

–“good”— Mark

Now what is the difference between “preference” and “good”? Well I can prefer something I can experience myself. We can say that fulfilling a preference feels good. We can also say that something is good even if it isn’t immediately preferable.
So to avoid confusion, lets say that **a preference is an experiential good, and a good is either an non-experiential intertemporal personal benefit, or objectively decidable interpersonal benefit.**

–“starting point”— Mark

So, i start with the first question of “why don’t I kill you and take your stuff”. The first question of ethics.

The answer is then one of short and long run costs versus benefits. As long as one’s opponents promise greater cost than reward, we choose cooperation or boycott – if we can choose boycott.

From there, to the disproportionate rewards of cooperation assuming predation is costly. Or as biological evolution has informed us: we possess the intuitive ability to both imitate, and beyond imitate to empathize, and beyond empathize to cooperate, and beyond cooperation to anticipate demand for cooperation. We evolved it because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding. But when we cooperate we must prevent free riders from undermining the incentive to cooperate – hence the human intuition to punish free riders (cheaters) even at high personal cost.

If a group decides that survival is not ‘good’ (bearing a cost of an intertemporal and directly imperceptible forecast subject to risk) and does not survive then it is not ‘good’ for others to imitate it if they wish to survive. Hence over time, good is defined as what others can imitate in order to survive. So, good is an evolutionary imperative, not a preference. A preference may feel good by analogy but it is not an abstract ‘good’ – a value judgement.
ie: subjective preferences and objective goods are different things. And those goods that are in fact ‘good’ are objectively ascertainable over time independent of subjective preference.

Cheers

Rate this:

Evolution of Organizing

17 Thursday Dec 2015

Posted by Curt Doolittle in Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

[I]’ll add a little context by way of political economy, and say that the world (a)first organized by household and slaves in the agrarian era by kinship relations, then (b) organized militarily and monarchally for the unskilled for the seasonal production cycle with extended relations, (c) then industrially and socialistically for the semi-skilled medium term production cycle of heavy capital and long term medium term relationships between firms, and is (d) currently organizing entrepreneurially and social democratically for the educated ‘discretionary worker’ for short term production cycles, highly distributed capital, and temporary networks of firms wherever it can do so.

But meanwhile (a) labor was never of much value in contrast to organizing production, and is of still declining value (b) marginal difference in firms was created by capital, and is now created by talent and creativity, (c) the duration of organizations (firms) has continued to decline along with the duration of networks of production. (d) Those countries playing catch-up will not sustain their growth because (e) institutions (trust and corruption) prevent them from doing so. So good institutions are less valuable than not having bad institutions. Worse, it appears that (f) good genetic capital is not as important as not having bad genetic capital. As France is illustrating, you can reverse the Flynn effect (benefit from transitioning from many individual rules to few simple general scientific principles of universal applicability).

We are engaged in the third world war at present, and it has no sign of improvement. And neither temporary networks of production nor the governments that facilitate may be able to survive the combination of a third world war, a slowing of growth, and a continued expansion of population of the underclasses for whom gainful labor is decreasingly available.

Not trying to rain on your parade, but the reverse side of the coin is just as frightening as the obverse is inspiring.

Rate this:

← Older posts
Curt Doolittle

Curt Doolittle

I am a philosopher of Natural Law, in the Western Aristocratic tradition, and I work for the Propertarian Institute.

View Full Profile →

The Propertarian Institute

Propertarianism is provided by
The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

Donations

Donate to the Propertarian Institute Using Paypal

Patreon
Donate to the Propertarian Institute Using Patreon.

Search

About

WHAT IS PROPERTARIANISM? Propertarianism is a formal logic of morality, ethics and politics – and the necessary basis for a non-arbitrary, value-independent, universal, body of law. One in which any and all political orders can be constructed; and with which all questions of morality, ethics and politics are commensurable and all moral ethical and political propositions are decidable. Propertarianism supplies the missing logic - the logic of cooperation.

Purpose

To convert western aristocratic egalitarian philosophy into rational and scientific terms: Anglo Conservatism is the remnant of the European Aristocratic Manorial system and the Classical Liberal philosophy of the Enlightenment combined with our ancient indo-european instincts for group persistence and land-holding: truth-telling, the jury, and heroism.

This philosophy - which separates the west from the rest - currently consists as a set of sentiments rather than as an rationally articulated philosophy expressed in scientific terms. And without that rational articulation, conservatives lack the ability to create and promote a plan that is a positive and rhetorically defensible alternative to the hazards of accidental bureaucracy and purposeful socialism.

This lack of an articulated philosophy leaves conservatives vulnerable in the public debate with Schumpeterian public intellectuals whose advantage in both volume of production, and simplicity of argument poses a nearly insurmountable challenge.

Propertarianism solves this problem of supplying a necessary, sufficient, and formal articulation of western aristocratic egalitarianism in ratio-scientific language, and the means by which to restore our civilization to it's competitive advantage: Truth Telling Suppression of Free Riding, and The Construction of Commons.

Follow Propertarianism on WordPress.com

Outline

  • Attributes (377)
    • Anti-Philosophy (10)
    • Aphorisms (19)
    • Charts (2)
    • Core (72)
    • Definitions (69)
    • Economics (5)
    • Education (4)
    • Español (Spanish) (45)
    • Ethics (Property) (1)
    • Fictional vs Juridical (7)
    • General Advocacy (23)
    • Government (Insurer of Last Resort) (5)
    • Grammar of Natural Law (16)
    • Group Evolutionary Strategy (Competition) (2)
    • Languages (Precision) (8)
    • Law (42)
    • Mathematics (10)
    • Pseudo-Economics (Austrian) (3)
    • Pseudo-Liberty Rothbardianism (6)
    • Psychology (Acquisitionism) (1)
    • Quotes (3)
    • Religion (8)
    • Rights (1)
    • Sequences (35)
    • Sociology, (Class, IQ) (10)
    • Sovereignty and Agency (3)
    • The New Right (22)
    • Truth (6)
    • Videos (11)
    • Violence (19)
    • War (7)
    • Western Uniqueness (6)
  • Authors (72)
    • Alberto R Zambrano U (46)
    • Alex Sea (2)
    • Eli Harman (3)
    • James Augustus (6)
    • Joel Davis (8)
    • Matej Lovrić (1)
    • Moritz Bierling (4)
    • Ryan Williams (1)
    • Simon Ström (1)
    • William Butchman (1)
  • Book (221)
    • P01-Problem (61)
      • 1.1-Introduction (problem) (2)
      • 1.2-Uniqueness (40)
      • 1.3-Enlightenment (1)
      • 1.4-Failure (8)
      • 1.5-Reversal (3)
      • 1.6-The Pattern of History (11)
      • 1.7-The Solution (Promise) (11)
    • P02-Man (48)
      • 2.1-Biology (1)
      • 2.2-Mind (2)
      • 2.3-Psychology (5)
      • 2.4-Sociology (18)
        • Classes (4)
        • Genders (5)
        • Races (4)
      • 2.5-Cooperation (7)
      • 2.6-Commons (4)
      • 2.7-Politics (7)
        • 2.7.1-Orders (3)
      • 2.8-Evolution (11)
    • P03-Philosophy (28)
      • 3.1-Introduction (6)
      • 3.3-Epistemology (6)
      • 3.4-Ethics (5)
      • 3.5-Testimony (4)
      • 3.6-Politics (7)
      • 3.7-Evolutionary Strategy (1)
      • 3.8-War (1)
      • 3.9-Aesthetics (1)
    • P04-Law (13)
      • 4.2-Construction (2)
      • 4.3-Application (8)
        • 4.3.5-Conflict (1)
          • 4.3.5.4-Economics and Trade War (1)
        • 4.3.8-The Informational Commons (1)
          • 4.3.8.3-Speaking In Ignorance (1)
          • 4.3.8.3-Speech (1)
        • 4.3.9-Others (4)
          • 4.3.9.2-Artificial, Synthetic, and Mechanical Intelligences (1)
          • 4.3.9.7-Slavery (2)
          • 4.3.9.8-Equality and Inequality (1)
    • P05-Institutions (Thou Shall) (60)
      • 5.1-Intro – Aristocratic Egalitarianism (2)
        • 5.1.2-Markets in Everything (and Market 'fascism') (2)
      • 5.3-The Production of Cooperation (Law) (2)
      • 5.4-The Production of Generations (4)
        • 5.4.0-The Genders (2)
        • 5.4.1 The Reformation of Motherhood (2)
      • 5.5-The Production of Goods, Services, and Information (4)
      • 5.6-The Production of Commons (3)
        • 5.6.1-Institutions (1)
          • 5.6.1.0-Fees, Taxes, And Free Riding (1)
      • 5.7-The Reformation of Information (46)
        • 5.7.1-The Reformation of Mythology (2)
        • 5.7.2-The Reformation of Religion (30)
        • 5.7.3 Reformation of Education (5)
        • 5.7.4 Reformation of the Academy (6)
          • 5.7.4.1 Mathematics (1)
        • 5.7.5 Reformation of the Fields (3)
        • 5.7.6-The Reformation Of The Military (1)
    • P06-Mastery (31)
      • 6.0-Thinkers (2)
      • 6.1-Ideologies (15)
        • 6.1.0-Progressivism (Feminism) (3)
        • 6.1.1-Cosmopolitanism (Judaism) (7)
          • 6.1.1.0-Socialism-Communism (1)
          • 6.1.1.1-Libertinism (2)
      • 6.2-Debate (argument) (4)
      • 6.3-Methodology (7)
      • 6.4-Examples (1)
    • P07-Execution – Revolution (4)
      • 7.01-Introduction (3)
      • 7.09.2-Secession (1)
  • Commentary (1)
  • Off Topic (38)
    • Artificial Intelligence (1)
    • Aspieness (1)
    • Criticisms of the Left (4)
    • Cultural Commentary (1)
    • Diary (1)
    • Healthcare and Other Services (1)
    • Russia and Ukraine (11)
    • Tech Business (8)
    • The Infantile Generation (1)
    • US International Policy (5)
    • Women, Men, Relationships (3)
  • Responses (11)
  • Strategies (3)
    • Islam (3)
  • Uncategorized (4,861)

Archives

  • April 2018 (2)
  • March 2018 (300)
  • February 2018 (226)
  • January 2018 (347)
  • December 2017 (306)
  • November 2017 (389)
  • October 2017 (120)
  • September 2017 (150)
  • August 2017 (8)
  • June 2017 (29)
  • May 2017 (137)
  • April 2017 (99)
  • March 2017 (173)
  • February 2017 (28)
  • January 2017 (8)
  • December 2016 (42)
  • November 2016 (141)
  • October 2016 (136)
  • September 2016 (210)
  • August 2016 (84)
  • July 2016 (5)
  • June 2016 (36)
  • May 2016 (39)
  • April 2016 (97)
  • March 2016 (51)
  • February 2016 (19)
  • January 2016 (81)
  • December 2015 (127)
  • November 2015 (81)
  • October 2015 (14)
  • September 2015 (26)
  • August 2015 (69)
  • July 2015 (108)
  • June 2015 (74)
  • May 2015 (26)
  • April 2015 (10)
  • March 2015 (8)
  • February 2015 (17)
  • January 2015 (26)
  • December 2014 (79)
  • November 2014 (50)
  • October 2014 (12)
  • September 2014 (10)
  • August 2014 (73)
  • July 2014 (76)
  • June 2014 (53)
  • May 2014 (27)
  • April 2014 (124)
  • March 2014 (8)
  • February 2014 (61)
  • January 2014 (7)
  • December 2013 (8)
  • November 2013 (54)
  • October 2013 (6)
  • September 2013 (5)
  • August 2013 (9)
  • July 2013 (47)
  • June 2013 (15)
  • May 2013 (7)
  • April 2013 (43)
  • March 2013 (33)
  • February 2013 (2)
  • January 2013 (7)
  • December 2012 (6)
  • November 2012 (1)
  • October 2012 (4)
  • September 2012 (9)
  • August 2012 (1)
  • July 2012 (13)
  • June 2012 (25)
  • May 2012 (18)
  • April 2012 (37)
  • March 2012 (50)
  • February 2012 (18)
  • January 2012 (8)
  • December 2011 (16)
  • November 2011 (12)
  • October 2011 (2)
  • September 2011 (5)
  • August 2011 (5)
  • July 2011 (9)
  • June 2011 (4)
  • May 2011 (6)
  • April 2011 (16)
  • March 2011 (14)
  • February 2011 (14)
  • January 2011 (7)
  • December 2010 (9)
  • November 2010 (13)
  • September 2010 (5)
  • August 2010 (20)
  • July 2010 (27)
  • June 2010 (10)
  • May 2010 (13)
  • April 2010 (31)
  • March 2010 (3)
  • February 2010 (1)
  • January 2010 (2)
  • December 2009 (4)
  • November 2009 (11)
  • October 2009 (1)
  • September 2009 (2)
  • January 1970 (1)
Advertisements

Powered by WordPress.com.