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.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/RCcqQ

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

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/BrOxB

Western Philosophical Hierarchy


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

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

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

===SPIRITUAL/AESTHETIC===
.......Love of nature (animism/paganism)

===PERSONAL===
Buddhism..........Stoicism
Yoga..............sport
Nurturing.........Craftsmanship.
Spiritual ........Political (mental?)
Experiential......Actionable
Feminine ........ Masculine

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

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/sk7oV

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: , ,

Utility, Truth and Consequence - An Important Lesson

True enough to do what? That’s the question.

***Your opinion is only enough to determine your action, but it is not enough to claim it is ‘true’, When you claim something is true, at that point you promise to others it is true enough to determine their action. And by that claim expose them to potential harm. This violates every ethical and moral limit to cooperation.***

A Hierarchy of Truths:

    True enough to imagine a conceptual relationship.
    True enough for me to feel good about myself.
    True enough for me to take actions that produce positive results.
    True enough for me to not cause others to react negatively to me.
    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion among my fellow people with similar values.
    True enough to resolve a conflict without subjective opinion across different peoples with different values.
    True regardless of all opinions or perspectives.
    Tautologically true: in that the two things are equal.
URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/DDUai

Restoring the Dimension (Property) of Action to Philosophy

The loss of the dimension of action from philosophy due to the invasion of platonism and religion is the reason for two millennia of limited progress. I suspect at first this was a linguistic limitation of early languages, combined with the history of animism, plus … one thing that is obvious to me… that operational language is expensive. Not just in words, but in the number of subset searches you must perform to convey an idea. So truth places a much higher burden on us until we develop a symbolic language for it that shortens the burden on us.

Just in my lifetime I perceive the difference in the metaphysical content of our language only half of which (science and probability) is beneficial, while the other half (high time preference, individualistic immoralism) is tragic.

As you go back, every generation it recedes into much clearer dialog using very clear references on one hand (enlightenment thought) then degrades into mystical thought. But if I must judge, I would say that we speak more superstitiously now than we did under the church.

Anyway, I have tried to restore all dimensions to philosophical argument and unite philosophy, morality, law, and science, as well as psychology and social science, into a single universal language.

Unfortunately that language is tedious. Just as I am sure science was tedious, and just as I am sure that removing animism, adding probability and evolutionary processes…. all were tedious.
But each transformation made man better than he was before.

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/aSrhw

Faith in Priors is not Rational, it's Instinctual

FAITH IN PRIORS IS NOT RATIONAL ITS INSTINCTUAL

—“The problem with this moral and immoral discourse is the following: I act merely as someone defending the non-aggression principle which I, to use a colloquialism, regard as sacrosanct.”—Anonymous

So you mean then that you are arguing from faith? Is that what you’re basing your definition of morality upon?

Well the problem with the half-truth of non aggression, is that one must aggress against something.

By referring to the NonAggression Principle RATHER than stating a complete sentence, “I will define the category ‘moral’ as those actions in which one does not aggress against …[something or other]…” since the verb (aggress) lacks a noun (subject) and is therefore dependent upon substitution (suggestion) and therefore an appeal to introspection (deception).

So you argue from this position that you have faith in an incomplete sentence that is structured precisely to avoid the necessity of defining the subject. In other words like ‘god is great’, NAP is a self referencing fallacy.

Perhaps it does not occur to you that all debate in the different wings of libertinism are reducible to the same problem: the scope of that which we aggress against (initiate imposition of costs upon). Without this definition what libertinism’s NAP must and can only refer to, is that which is suppled by introspection by the listener and speaker.

And while you can cast at me the accusation of sophism, it is somewhat ironic that one would fail to grasp that his entire moral basis is predicated upon a rather simplistic verbal sophism: a half truth that relies upon subjective substitution for agreement. But when articulated as it is by the various wings of libertinism, is no longer decidable.

If you can grasp this – that you have been duped, and a useful idiot – then you will be on the journey OUT OF SOPHISM into truthfulness.

You may not understand it right away but this argument ends rothbardian ethics and the NAP forever.

Hoppe tries to rescue it with NAP IVP: Intersubjectively Verifiable Property. Meaning physical property. Yet IVP is insufficient to suppress retaliation, reduce transaction costs, and eliminate demand for authoritarian intervention on the basis of decidability.

(That is the beauty of the lie of NAP: it leaves individual decidability but not intersubjective decidability, meaning that it is not logically possible to resolve disputes logically. It requires discretion (arbitrariness) and therefore authority not rule of law. )

I repair this problem of undecidability by using property en toto, or demonstrated property: that which people retaliate against the imposition of costs upon, and therefore that which is sufficient for the elimination of discretion, and therefore elimination of authority and demand for the state.

By consequence this definition of Non aggression against Property-en-toto defines the scope of that which we must reciprocally insure one another such that there is no demand for authority and such that we can rely entirely upon rule of law.

I know it is hard for you to give up on a bad investment, but you’ve made a bad investment. You were played – just like Socialists and NeoCons.

-Curt

Feedback:

—“So by failing to cover the scope of that which can be agressed against (demonstrated property), adherence of the NAP would leave the door open for pleas to authoritarianism as well as parasitism in a polity.”—Preston Martin

Exactly. ;)

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/BGqmV

It's Moral to Seek to Understand.

***A moral man asks questions until he understands. He seeks to understand. An immoral man imposes costs upon others in the hope the others cannot pay those costs, rather than seek the truth. As such cost-imposers are liars and cheats, and thieves.***

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/PV8qm

Are There Good Reasons To Argue with Amateurs? Sure.

There are two reasons to conduct arguments in forums, or their long history of ancestors back to Newsgroups, CompuServe, bulletin boards, and newsletters.

First is to learn how to defeat BAD arguments made by amateurs. Primarily because the mass of political voters in this world are amateurs.

Second to understand the psychology of those who engage in sentimental rather than informed arguments.

What you learn is that many men cannot argue from a position of weakness by simply asking questions. And that many young men in particular who feel outcast, hold to rationalist status seeking life rafts like rats in a sinking ship.

So what you eventually come to understand, is that (a) it’s a combative way of learning for some who do not have access to quality teachers, professors, or the ability to digest written material. And (b) a combative way of getting attention on the other, from those who feel alienated. And lastly (c) a way to develop skill debating amateurs.

I have a great deal of respect for the latter use, and used it myself. It is a great way to learn to conduct verbal sparring, and to learn all the logical fallacies that amateurs depend upon.

I like to help individuals who need access to someone informed due to their inability to make a connection during their education. I see this as something between a moral obligation and a public service. Men are not treated well by our feminized education system.

But I don’t like to waste my time on the borderline schizotypal personalities or those who merely want attention.

Cheers

URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/oOM1K