Eli on Love (Great Post)

I think that love (noun) refers to the condition in which one’s happiness depends on another’s.

And therefore to love (verb) must mean to act in a manner consistent with this condition prevailing.

If we adopt these as our definitions, then it becomes obvious, upon cursory examination, that we can never accurately describe actual “love” (either the noun or the verb) as either universal or unconditional for long.

For example, unrequited love would tend to consume, either its host, or its host’s willingness to continue entertaining it; for it entails costs with certainty, but holds out no sure promise of benefits, and would be easy to take advantage of.

But reciprocal love may prove (under some conditions) sustainable or even (under others) productive.

Curt Doolittle made a status the other day, or perhaps a comment, wherein he opined that the statement “I love you” must resolve operationally to something like “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that ‘I love you’ you will not find it untrue.”

So we can resolve this still further to say that “I love you” means “I promise that if you test the hypothesis that my happiness depends on your own against my actions, you will not find it untrue.”

—Eli Harman



—-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-

This is an interesting example, so lets use it.

You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question.

Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law

This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable.

So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes.

We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism.

Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically).

Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood.

So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference
There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations).

But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex).

This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH.

Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error.

It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions.

So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements.

What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions.

When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compensatory means they will not tolerate it.

So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons.

One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.


Debating Useful Idiots of All Stripes

(snippet of debate we can learn from)

I almost always operate under the assumption that genes do the talking and that the rational mind needs assistance in overcoming the influence of accumulated cognitive bias in favor of one’s reproductive strategy.

So I suspect you are just the usual victim of WISHFUL THINKING and need rescuing.

Because I don’t see evidence that you’re knowledgeable enough to engage in FRAUD.

And I don’t see evidence that you’re emotionally neutral and openly skeptical of your opinion so I do not think you ERR.

As such, you are the perfect target for cosmopolitan deception: an obscurant and complex justification for whatever your cognitive bias: socialist, libertine, or neocon. You are a ‘useful idiot’ for the anti-western anti-aristocratic pseudoscientific, pseudo-rational, religions. The great lie version two. This time in multiple class sizes: socialist, libertine, and neocon.

It’s not so bad that one is fooled – we all are. What’s bad is maintaining a bias that’s increasingly, obviously, false, because it was a bad but exciting investment.


Naturalism, Aristotelianism, Christianity, Stoicism and now Buddhism

Here is the thing about Christianity: the extension of kinship love to non-kin and the extirpation of hatred from the human heart. Our people have lower sensitivity to (disgust for) out-groups anyway. But between our genetic bias as cold weather folk, christianity, chivalry, and the prohibition on cousin marriage, the west has evolved rapidly a high trust civilization – even if it has become partly to its detriment.

Yes our mediterranean, hanseatic and nordic trade routes were helpful as well, since commercial cultures without out-group competition tend to have less reason to be mistrustful.

Yes, our lack of genetic diversity helped quite a bit.

Yes, as we’ve learned recently (to my excitement) it appears that the lower incidence of disease in the cold climate means lower barriers to association and trade.

But our primary talent – martial epistemology – or truthfulness – would not be as useful without this christian openness. This preference for ‘error on the side of trust’.

What christianity achieves through extension of kinship love, buddhism achieves through introspection, stoicism achieved through planning, focus, action, and review. These are three different methods of training the unquiet mind to quietly interact with the world, without fear.

Westerners practice many religions: The nurturer (buddhism), the craftsman(stoicism), the merchant and politician (christianity), the warrior (the military), the scientist (Aristotle), the aesthete (Pagan nature worship). (and unfortunately, over the past century, the pseudoscientific state worshipper)

We have always been a poly-spiritual people. We have always been and will likely remain pagans. Religions are tools.

I know the value of a quiet mind: the absence of anxiety and fear.
I know the (lost) value of the worship of nature: care of the commons.
I know the importance of membership in the tribe: ceremonies and rituals.
I know the value of spirituality (invoking the feeling of the safety of the pack).
I know the value of solace in fear, hopelessness, suffering and death.

But I also know that love, truth, and trust create prosperity.

Because fear, deceit, and mistrust generate poverty.

How do we distinguish a religion from a political system? Law rather than wisdom (advice). How do we distinguish a religion from a military system? conquest. How do we distinguish a good religion from a bad anything else? The relative economic status of its adherents.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.


Responding to "Aggressively Unreadable Doolittle"

RE: http://selfadoration.com/for-luke-williams-heres-a-com…/8123

—“or the aggressively-unreadable Doolittle.”—-

You know, I want to say ‘ouch’ but, I have to just own it. lol.
On the other hand have you read Hegel? Wittgenstein? Heidegger?

Philosophy is a technical specialty like any niche technical discipline. The difference is that we are often trying to reorder existing human conceptual categories, properties, and relations. Rewiring the mind so to speak.

I am far better than I was even four years ago. And I will get better still. But in the end, a philosopher writes for experts, experts write for the heavily interested, and the heavily interested write for the popular, and the popular simplify for the simple. This is how innovation in thought is distributed.

I am not the first person to say that our job is to bring people up to the new level of comprehension not dumb it down for the existing level where its lacking. Else darwin would have vanished by now. Even still – most people still think evolution has a direction. smile emoticon

I am doing something very special. And very important. And I know that doing it in public is a risk. But it turns out lots of people like to see the product being made so to speak, and it also turns out that it helps me a great deal to get their comment and criticism.

I want to make it impossible for politicians and public intellectuals to lie without repercussion. To do that I have to show how to tell the truth. From there how to put the technique for truth telling into law, and a constitution. If we make it just as difficult to deceive, lie cheat, free ride and privatize as we have made it difficult to steal physical property, then liberty will result from it. Because all those things that prohibit liberty are matters of theft of one kind or another. So instead of advocating liberty as a way of producing liberty, I’m trying to outlaw everything else so that only liberty remains.

It is this inversion of the philosophy of liberty that takes a while to get your head around. Just as incremental suppression of parasitism by the constant evolution of the common law leaves only the market available for survival, I want to make the incremental suppression of parasitism in the public discourse and law leaving only truth candidates that survive. If we succeed at this goal, and if we convert from monopoly rule democracy to a market for the production of commons between the classes, then we will have constructed a condition of liberty – and a condition of liberty that persists.

Anyway. I really do apologize that my work is indigestible. It really does take a pretty sophisticated individual to grok it. But they do. And we move onward. Slowly.


Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Strategy: If We Eliminate The Parasitic, Only Liberty Remains

(worth repeating)

Remove all choice, so that only Liberty Remains, just as by removing all choice, only the market remains.

“If we make it just as difficult to deceive, lie cheat, free ride and privatize as we have made it difficult to steal physical property, then liberty will result from it. Because all those things that prohibit liberty are matters of theft of one kind or another. So instead of advocating liberty as a way of producing liberty, I’m trying to outlaw everything else so that only liberty remains.”—Curt Doolittle

We pacify man by the incremental suppression and if necessary, extermination, of parasitism.


The Propertarian (Doolittle) Scientific Political Chart

The only meaningful notion of ‘right’ and ‘left’ that I can state existentially is k-selection (right/masculine ), vs r-selection (left/feminine-universal) since these are opposing strategies with libertarianism (voluntary cooperation) achievable as a compromise between the two strategies. (that is how I see we minority libertarians: providing a compromise between the genders through voluntary cooperation).

As far as I know we must talk in at least three dimensions to discuss options on political orders.

1 - Organization of production - distribution of property
< ---centralized----------------meritocratic-----------------equal--->
< ---tyranny----------------------liberty----------------------communism->

2 - Organization of production of the commons - the fruits of production
< ----centralized---------------meritocratic---------------- equal--->
< ----tyranny-----------------------liberty--------------------communism->

3 - Organization of Reproduction - National(kin) or Corporate(kin-independent)
< ----authoritarian(personal)-----kin/nation------------corporate-->
< ----???------------------------------Eugenic---------------Dysgenic--->
< ---K-selection...................... merit selection........ r-selection--->

And to construct these organizations we require incentives:

4 - Weapon of Influence (methods of organization)
< ----Violence-----------------------Exchange-------------Gossip-------->
< ----Loss of Life/harm.....loss of consumption....loss of cooperation-->
< ----Promise of safety....promise of consumption... promise of cooperation->

So it is indeed impossible to construct an r-selected order non-parasitically. Because that’s precisely what it means. And it is so because we must produce incentive to engage in costly production if we are human (k-selection), even though the herd must just graze on whatever grass is available (r-selection).

This is the Doolittle chart, not the Nolan Chart.
This chart unifies all disciplines from biology to politics to economics.
This chart is consistently explanatory across all political orders.

So as far as I know any OTHER method of representing the organization of Production(consumption), commons(investment) and reproduction(perpetuation) is a distraction for the purpose of achieving an alternate end other than the true and moral.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


Western Philosophical Hierarchy

........Heroism (demonstrated excellence)
........Science (truth) ......
........Naturalism (reality)
....... Natural Law (sovereignty)

........Consent, Contract, Republican(Meritocratic) Commons
........Testimony, Common Law, Judge, Jury

........Christianity (love/trust bias)

.......Love of nature (animism/paganism)

Spiritual ........Political (mental?)
Feminine ........ Masculine

I haven’t got the metaphysical right because they overlap and it is how they overlap that makes the west unique.


Bienes Contractuales: La ley se descubre y los contratos e intercambios se llevan a cabo

Articúlo original de Curt Doolittle:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/20/law-exists-but-must-be-found-government-cannot-construct-it/

Traducido por Alberto R. Zambrano U. 

Nosotros podemos producir un mercados para bienes que no son consumibles así com podemos producir un mercado para bienes privados consumibles. pero esa ley y esos bienes son dos cosas distintas. Pero no hay razón alguna, que sabiendo cómo construir las leyes del derecho consuetudinario, el gobierno sea capaz de producir leyes nuevas. No puede.
La ley es descubierta y como consecuencia, contratos e intercambios se llevan a cabo.

    1. La velocidad de la economía (riqueza) se determina por ele rato de supresión de parasitismo. Esto elimina costos de transacción.
    2. La velocidad de la economía (riqueza) se determina por ele rato de supresión de parasitismo. Esto elimina costos de transacción.
    3. El poder se origina para centralizar el parasitismo e incrementar los costos materiales, al suprimir el parasitismo local y como consecuencia, se eliminan los costos locales de transacción. Nosotros hacemos intercambios costosos locales por costos de supresión
    4. El poder se origina para centralizar el parasitismo e incrementar los costos materiales, al suprimir el parasitismo local y como consecuencia, se eliminan los costos locales de transacción. Nosotros hacemos intercambios costosos locales por costos de supresión menos costosos.
    5. Una vez que esos costos son centralizados, pueden ser eliminados de forma progresiva. Pero eso sólo es posible si hay un medio institucional de decidir los conflictos que puedan ser usados para reemplazar el juicio personal como un medio para decidir conflictos y disputas.
    6. Los únicos medios de producir reglas institucionales para reemplazar el juicio personal es por medio del derecho consuetudinario, independiente y evolutivo que descansa sobre la prohibición de las relaciones parasitarias (negativos), codificada como derechos de propiedad (positivos): productivos, garantizados, completamente informados, intercambio voluntario, libre de exterioridad negativa.
    7. La supresión de la violencia y el robo es fácil porque las acciones son existenciales y sus resultados son obvios. Pero mientras progresivamente incrementos la violencia y el robo, la gente busca la forma de defraudar, y ejecutar fraudes por omisión, por sugerencia, imponen costos por exterioridad, corrupción, y asociación para delinquir. Así que suprimir este tipo de latrocinios más complejos requiere de testimonio y decisión.
    8. El lenguaje evolucionó para justificar (moralidad), negociar (engañar) y juntar opiniones (chismes), y sólo de forma tangente y de forma tardía para describir (la verdad). La verdad como la entendemos es una invención y no es natural- razón por la cual es única en la Civilización Occidental, y es la razón por la cual los filósofos se han tardado tanto en comprenderla.. Sin embargo, los occidentales evolucionaron de una epistemología militar porque se apoyaron en guerreros que se auto financiaban al participar voluntariamente, así como el jurado en los procesos legales y decir la verdad. (La diferencia marginal en la habilidad intelectual aparentemente no es común- todos eran lo suficientemente inteligentes, y dicho testimonio fue, en sí mismo “entrenamiento”).
    9. No podemos esperar o exigir testimonios verdaderos de la gente a menos que ellos sepan cómo producirlo. Por ejemplo: La educación en lo que yo considero es la religión occidental: “lo verdadero, lo moral y lo bello”. Así que considero que este tipo de educación es “sagrada” y no meramente utilitaria.
    10. No podemos esperar o exigir verdad y ley de la gente a menos que no esté en contra de sus intereses, por ejemplo: El único sistema político universal es el Nacionalismo, porque los grupos pueden verdaderamente actuar interna y externamente, y pueden usar el intercambio y hacer negocios para neutralizar las diferencias competitivas. Y con el nacionalismo, los individuos no pueden evadir el pagar el costo de transformar sus propias sociedades, y ellos mismos, dejando la carga de hacerlo sobre otras sociedades.
    11. Los bienes comunes son una ventaja profundamente competitiva. bienes Territoriales, institucionales, normativos, genéticos, físicos, y económicos (industriales) son una ventaja para cualquier grupo.La civilización occidental es la sociedad más exitosa que haya producido bienes comunes y es por esa razón que eso es importante para occidente. Así que debemos proveer los medios para producir esos bienes. La diferencia entre el mercado para bienes y servicios privados (donde la competencia de producción es un buen incentivo) y los bienes corporativos (públicos) en donde debamos prevenir la privatización de las ganancias para socializar las pérdidas, requiere que proveamos un monopolio de protección de esos bienes para el consumo.Pero no sólo requiere que proveamos un monopolio, los bienes comunes requieren solamente que la gente esté dispuesta a pagar por ellos. De otra forma, no hay preferencia demostrada para esos bienes.

      La actividad aseguradora es un bien común y dejaré ese tema para otra ocasión.

      Retorno de inversión (dividendos) son los productos de los bienes. Y también dejaré eso para otra ocasión.

      El punto central es que nosotros podemos producir un mercado para bienes comunes usando al gobierno de la misma forma que lo hacemos con el mercado de los bienes privados. Peor la ley los bienes son dos cosas distintas. Y no hay ninguna razón por la cual, sabiendo cómo construir el derecho consuetudinario, que el gobierno sea capaz de producir leyes. No puede.

      La ley es. No puede ser creada. Sólo identificada.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/wQZCr Tags: , ,

Las leyes prohiben la transferencia involuntaria. Los contratos intercambian derechos

Artículo original de Curt Doolittle
Traducido por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

Cuando se redacta una nueva constitución, nosotros fácilmente podemos privar al gobierno (que es un productor de bienes comunes) y al poder judicial (encargado en la adjudicación y administración de la ley) de la habilidad de poder legislar.- Las únicas leyes que pueden existir son aquellas que prohiban los medios para que se origine el parasitismo (chuleo, imposición de costos). Y esas leyes deben ser descubiertas y tener un desarrollo teórico.

Inversamente, todos los derechos positivos sólo pueden existir como provisiones contractuales en lo que a materia de intercambio se refiere. La justicia inherente a los contratos es algo que nosotros cómo hacer, y hemos hecho a lo largo de la historia de la humana.

Ahora que podemos, cada uno de nosotros puede negociar o directamente, o darle poderes a otra persona, partido, grupo o afines, el derecho de negociar contratos a nombre nuestro. Y el hecho de que lo puedan hacer los ata y nos ata al cumplimiento de los contratos que se negocien.

Pero de ninguna forma, se puede negociar un contacto que vaya en contravención de las leyes- que imponga transferencias involuntarias, o externalice las transferencias involuntarias. Tampoco se puede engañar en los contratos, por medio del oscurantismo verbal (lenguaje no operativo) o al violar la constricción estricta, o en su equivalente cuantitativo (dinero).

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/yIEAd Tags: , ,