Definition: Propertarianism (For Wikipedia)

DEFINITION 

—“Propertarianism is a formal logic of morality, ethics and politics – and the necessary basis for a non-arbitrary, value-independent, universal, body of law; upon which any and all political orders can be constructed, and with which all questions of morality, ethics and politics can be commensurably compared and all such propositions decided.”—- 

DESCRIPTION

Propertarianism refers to a logical methodology that evolved first from John Locke, and then through the American libertarian movement, that attempts to express all ethical, moral, and political questions as consisting of various forms of property that can be voluntarily exchanged.

This methodology reduces all moral propositions to testable statements: if something is ethical, moral, right and just, then what was exchanged, and was it voluntarily exchanged with full knowledge of consequences?

USAGE

The term is used casually to suggest that all questions of liberty are reducible to a statements of property and its voluntary transfer; then more accurately, that property rights are deontologically constructed necessities of human existence under natural law; and lastly, formally, the term is used to refer to a complete system of philosophy named ‘Propertarianism’ developed by Curt Doolittle for the analysis and criticism of all political moral and ethical questions, whether libertarian or not. (Where complete means that it both answers metaphysical, epistemological, ethical, political and aesthetic questions, and also satisfies Owen Flanagan‘s test of a sufficient moral psychology.)

Usage: Propertarianism, (capitalized) for the explicit philosophy; and lower case for ‘propertarian’, which is used to refer to all three senses: “Locke was the first to state a propertarian argument.”

In grammatically correct usage, one makes a propertarian argument; one ‘is’ a propertarian if he merely holds ideological bias in favor of its use; one relies upon propertarian reasoning if he can make use of it, or one advocates propertarianism in some manner or other; and the name of the formal philosophy is Propertarianism.

DIFFERENCES FROM LIBERTARIANISM

Apples and oranges: Propertarianism is a logical system for the rational comparison of human moral propositions across all possible moral codes. Libertarianism is an ideological system of thought for the purpose of either obtaining political power, denying others political power, or bringing about a particular social and ethical system.

So while libertarianism may make use of Propertarianism and propertarian reasoning, because perhaps it best suits libertarian preferences, and because it evolved out of the libertarian movement, Propertarianism is a system of logical analysis of human cooperation, and not an advocacy of any particular political bias. It is just as easy to construct conservative and progressive arguments using Propertarianism as it is libertarian. It’s just that propertarianism, as a method of argument, makes it extremely difficult to ‘cheat’ and deceive others (or mislead yourself) when conducting a political argument or negotiation.

To the contrary, Doolittle uses Propertarianism to specifically criticize those libertarians who attempt to escape paying for the behavioral costs that make a libertarian society under the rule of law possible. Instead Doolittle argues that conservatives are more right than other groups in their moral preferences, they merely haven’t developed a rational language for discussion of their ideas, advocacy of their ideas, or, most importantly, the reformation of their ideas when we obtain sufficient knowledge via science to reform those ideas.

See the current definition here:

Q: Curt, Would You Consider Yourself A Continental Philosopher?

QUESTION:  “Curt, Would you consider yourself a continental philosopher?”

ANSWER:  

No. Propertarianism is an analytic argument based upon empirical evidence independent of and explicitly contrary to, if not hostile to, continental rationalism. 

Continental philosophers reject natural science as the exclusive means of knowledge, whereas, I argue a sort of synthesis, where the methodology of science is merely what is necessary for us to speak the truth about what we sense, perceive, and reason – not any particular vehicle for obtaining knowledge.

Then I demonstrate, fairly frequently, that rationalism without these tests of truth-telling, has proved to be a vehicle for lies, deceptions and frauds – Marx, Freud, Cantor, Russell, the Frankfurt School, Mises’ failure at producing praxeology, Rothbard’s immoral libertinism, and dozens more.

So the struggle to tell the truth, rather than the assumption that there is a superior means of knowledge to merely struggling to tell the truth, is what separates Propertarianism, (which includes operationalism and testimonial truth) from Praxeology.  With Propertarianism we can achieve what Praxeology promised, but we do so not by depending upon rationalism which is an exceptionally good vehicle for error and deception, but by relying upon making observations of phenomenon, attempting to construct them operationally (praxeologically), and speaking truthfully about what we have done.

I am in the camp of thinkers that suggests Kant was with Zoroaster and Abraham in constructing one of the worst sets of ideas in history – and the continent has absorbed it.  The evolution of complex lies: Zoroaster->Abraham->Kant->Marx->Postmoderns had only physical science, and the strong, as competitors to contain them. I have tried to make it nearly impossible to construct such rational deceptions and errors, and I think succeeded.

Now, just to flip it around, the Analytic tradition in English speaking countries has spent a century of wasted effort attempting to construct a science of itself. And it was a complete failure. They were trying to use language to determine truth, but this isn’t possible – and some of them know it finally.

Propertarianism and operationalism and testimonial truth take the opposite approach – we must demonstrate, describe, only what is extant – because that is the only information that can be known to exist – and as such not constitute justification, deception, imagination, projection. The purpose is to make sure we speak the truth – that we DO NO HARM.

Why? Because it turns out that rationalism can be used as the most successful form of lying and human misery since the invention of scriptural monotheism. IN that sense, Continental rationalism is just christianity 3.0 – mysticism in secular obscurant language.

Curt Doolittle,
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine

Consumer Capitalism? Or Is It Consumer Credit-Ism?

Why do we refer to our voluntary organization of production as Capitalism when that era ended at least half a century ago –  and call it Consumer Cedit-ism instead.

Ukrainians are poor because they lack credit. Capitalism is a different social class problem altogether. And by historical standards we don’t really have any capitalists any longer – only people with enough trust to accumulate a lot if credit.  Our rich aren’t really rich enough to do much of anything other than try desperately to stay rich against all odds.

In the 18th and 19th century, It was easy to amass a little capital and produce consumer goods.

It was a lot harder to distribute consumer credit to all.  

Consumer Credit-ism is how we operate our society – capitalism died with the end of the conversion of people from the farm.

Methodological Ternary-ism: Physical Instrumentation, Logical Instrumentation, Social Instrumentation

Truth.

This word can be translated as the “mind of God”.

Because this word is used as if referring to the mind of God.

But, this use is a deception in and of itself.

There exists no mind to discover, and no truth to discover: it isn’t hidden. The universe lies bare for us all to see.

So it’s not that anything is hidden from us to uncover.

Instead, we lack the senses to see it, and we lack the mind to comprehend without some means of reducing it to analogy to experience that we can sense and perceive.

So, the problem we face, is not one of knowing the Truth – the mind of God – as if we seek to know the mind of one another.

The problem we face is in compensating for the frailty of our senses, perception, reason by the construction of instruments.

We construct three forms of instruments.

1- Physical Instrumentation (the instruments)
2- Logical Instrumentation (the logics and methods)
3- Social Instrumentation (institutional)

And of three, the third is most important, since it is the hardest to develop and control, because the incentives of individuals are contrary to the production of instrumental measurements.

We – all of us – constitute the third form of instrument – the division of calculation across individuals.

And our only means of producing accurate measures and calculations upon them is to require truthful testimony from one another.

But your take away from this short bit of prose, is that westerners engaged in methodological ternary-ism*, not methodological dualism.

And we didn’t even know that was our art.

I think this problem is now one I can consider solved.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
Kiev Ukraine


*Note: I mean ‘consisting of three’ and nothing more. I wanted to use the extant term “trinitarianism”, but it’s too loaded for practical use.

The Spectrum of Terms for Impulsivity

Preference is a choice. Demonstrated time preference (useful for the economic concept of interest but not scientific in that it’s causally descriptive) appears to be largely genetic, and is determined by what we consider the ‘frustration budget':our ability to suppress the urge for gratification.

So the terms, Impulsivity, frustration budget (tolerance), and time preference represent three portions of the impulsivity spectrum. Where the lower our impulsivity, the higher our tolerance for frustration, and the greater our willingness to persist a desire for a long term goal, each represent our social classes.

As such to discuss time preference outside of the impulsively scale is to attribute to choice that which is no more available to choice than rational thought is to the solipsist, empathy is to the autistic, or operational calculation using abstract rules of deduction is to the imbecile.

The language of libertinism is rife with upper middle class economic loading and framing: attributing to choice that which is not, in order to perpetuate the fallacy that liberty is a rational preference and choice, rather than the reproductive strategy of an elite minority and the social outcasts that follow them in hopes of status seeking. Instead, science: empiricism, instrumentalism, operationalism and performative truth attempts to explain all phenomenon in least loaded and framed (if not least obscurant) terms.

It is for this reason that the language of science is the language of the spoken and written truth, and rationalism must always be suspect, because the majority of outright lies, pseudo-rationalism and pseudoscience have been told in rational language.

So while rationalists say that something is possible or may be possible, science merely demonstrates that rationalism is de facto the optimum means of lying invented by man.

And the 20th century as Hayek proposed, was merely the high point of cosmopolitan pseudoscience, precisely because those with lesser abilities relied upon rationalism rather than science. And they did so because it was profitable to lie: see various quotes by and about Marx and Keynes.

Praxeology can be repaired: by restating it as operationalism and testimonial truth. Mises merely failed in his attempt. Because he relied upon rationalism rather than science. And very likely, as did popper, and the rest of the cosmopolitans, because it allowed him to justify preconceptions rather than to discover uncomfortable truths: that the cosmopolitan way of life was systemically immoral, and that western universalism cannot be use as an attempt to preserve separatism.

Usufructs Under Propertarianism

QUESTION: Curt Doolittle, how do you reconcile usufructs with Propertarianism?

ANSWER:  Just for everyone’s benefit, lets understand what these things mean:

DEFINITIONS 

- Commons (common ownership) – where the three rights of ownership are held by more than one individual: 

1 – Usus (use) The right to use or enjoy a commons, directly and without altering it. (Walking in a Park)

2 – Fructus (the fruits of) is the right to derive profit from a commons. (Selling the blueberries you have grown in the park).

3 – Abusus (abuse), the right to transfer, consume, or destroy. (Selling off a piece of the park, or building a home on it. So Abusus consists of two categories of rights
……(a) Right of transfer. (Emancipation) or ‘Mancipio’,
……(b) Right to consume or destroy, or ‘Abusus’.

- Ownership: (monopoly) Possession of all three rights determines ownership.

USUFRUCTUS
The right to use and bear the fruits of some asset without the right to transfer, consume, or destroy it. 

Usufruct is technically how land is treated in almost all civilizations: land is a commons distributed via some set of property rights or other (including none), and some set of limited ownership rights are transferred to individuals. 

Under anglo saxon and current property rights I have the right also to transfer, even if I do not possess the right to destroy or consume. (ie: pollute). 

So while Abusus means an abuse of the commons (Privatization), in the west the right of transfer is separate from the right of privatization, for example just as bitcoin is a fractional asset (divisible), in our western civilization, land is also a allocated as a fractional (divisible) asset. (A fairly uncommon thing as it turns out). 

So in the west we would separate the following rights in any commons.
1) Usus, 2) Fructus, 3) ‘Mancipo’, 4) Abusus

HOW DO I RECONCILE USUFRUCTUS
These are all just properties of contract. Propertarianism does not allow for incalculable statements of any kind since it is non-operational, undecideable, and therefore this allows for involuntary transfer – and therefore any contractual commons must possess an enumerated set of shareholders, with specifically articulated rights. 

I can conceive no conditions under which Abusus – destruction of land (pollution) – can exist as a declared right by any shareholders.

Basic argument is this: those who defend the land own the land, and allocate Usus, Fructus, and Mancipio to fellow shareholders, but never Abusus.

Now I am pretty sure I know all the directions anyone could run with this but I am confident I can cover all objections.

Curt Doolittle 
The Propertarian Institute 
Kiev

Winter Victories, and Letting God Sort Them Out

It’s winter in Kiev. It’s 27F. It’s noticeably dark early again. I’ve hung up the leather jacket, switched to the wool coat and layers. The shops have heavily discounted what remains of fall, and those without winter stock are empty. They’ve skipped the ‘autumn’ coat season here and gone right to winter-wear. The music playlists have returned to normal – more synth and rock suitable for clubs, less pop suitable for cafes. Slavic men look GOOD in continental urban winter men’s wear – rather than our american faux-outdoorsman-look that hides our bulging american bellies. Winter wear is elegant here and varied. You can’t find mens’ shoes that aren’t insulated.

On my part, my body must have known, because I gained 3.5 kilos in the past two months, and it’s time to stop storing up fat for the winter already. :) I also realized that I am subconsciously afraid of another winter here, because last winter, between the US government trying to kill me, the financial catastrophe it put me into, the hostile takeover of my previous company, the revolution putting my new business at risk, Putin’s invasion of these beautiful people, and being sick for 12 weeks in the late winter and spring, that there is a left over bit of trauma in there I haven’t been able to expunge.

Meanwhile I still managed to fight off the government, settle the take-over amicably, get the men out of the country, nearly complete the product, open the intellectual attack on libertine Rothbardians, drop the winter weight, write some pretty solid philosophy.

Liberty just requires we demand truth-telling. Never surrender. Give no quarter. Show no mercy. If necessary, kill them all and let god sort it out. ;)

Cheers.

Speaking Honestly vs Truthfully (vs Dishonestly)

I’m really happy with having captured the difference between speaking honestly, speaking truthfully, and the mere concept of .

  • Platonic (Analytic) Truth: the most parsimonious description that is not a tautology.
  • Speaking Truthfully: promising an epistemic warranty, that you possess the knowledge of construction(causation) and of use(correlation), necessary to make a truth claim, consisting of the minimum error, bias, imaginary content, deception that is possible for you to render with current technology.
  • Speaking Honestly: that you testify only to experiential knowledge (correlation) but not to causation, and that your testimony is free of deception, because you cannot have warrantied that your testimony is free of error, bias, and imaginary content.

This is relatively important because, as I said yesterday, apriorism cannot be true, unless all all properties and contexts under such a general rule remain constant. This is very, very close to being limited to a tautologies – something I will have to work on further.

Citizens vs Shareholders

—“Service guarantees citizenship. – This is why I served in the US military even though I wasn’t compelled to.”—David M.

So, for use by our Corporations we have created various forms of stock: including Controlling, Various Preferred, Common, Non-Voting, and Options. These different shares roughly reflect the different value that we bring to companies. Controlling is for management and founders, preferred for professional investors (board members), common for uninformed lenders (‘pseudo-investors’ via the stock market), and non-voting (options in the event of a sale) and options (bonuses) for employees.

When we use the term ‘citizenship’ today it carries with it the current assumption that citizenship is at best equal to a common, non-voting, or option form of stock. When democratic indo europeans use that term, they mean it as a member that the corporation of the aristocracy or church has agreed to insure. In the pre-democratic era, Citizen refers to the heads of households, families or businesses, that have demonstrated investment in the corporation. In the greek era, that was less than 10% of the population (what we would consider the oligarchy (<1%) the nobility (1%), and the upper middle class (<10%)

I don’t really agree with Mencius’ approach, but if you told me instead, that we voted for ‘motions’, (internal contracts between shareholders), that any voting shareholder could put forward a motion, that such motions were perishable (had to collect votes in a specific period of time), that all voting was conducted publicly, entirely transparently, and recorded in the public block chain; that each share granted an individual one vote, and that all individuals were prohibited from possession of more than one share, and that a majority or supermajority of **each** class of shares had approve any vote, then I think that is a successful means of running some sort of juridical democracy under nomocratic rule (rule of law).

This approach, direct voting. does not eliminate public intellectuals, and their propensity to overload, lie, obscure, frame and load,  but it does eliminate politicians (agents) who are subject to opaque influences. If the normative and intellectual commons is as I have stated, property that the corporation agrees to defend, and all shareholders possess standing in court in suits concerning the commons, and that we require truthful speech in all matters of the commons, because we require warranty of products, services, and public speech, then public intellectuals can be independently regulated.

Rather than classify individuals ‘as’ something or other, we can issue (and possibly limit) shares (block chain / public-ledger accounts). Shares can be earned (purchased) through demonstrated actions, but not purchased by any material exchange, not transferred, and not awarded, granted, given, for any other reason). If one has earned a higher status share, he must trade in any existing share to redeem the new one.

Repeat felons for example, are effectively wards of the corporation, as are children, not shareholders. I suspect that the class of wards would be fairly large, the class of non voting shares – non-contributing people – fairly large, voting -contributing- fairly large, preferred services shares (care-taking), preferred production(professional, business, and industry), and preferred aristocracy (military, militia, law) fairly large. The most interesting problem is the judiciary, because the law has managed to create a secular ‘priesthood’ (cult) over time due to the very high investment costs in rituals, and to self- manage that cult. Which I find fascinating. And as long as one can preserve that cult via military service, indoctrination, truth-telling, and propertarian calculation, then I think it only requires a small number of people, all of whom have extraordinary interests in it, to preserve liberty.

I will cover this idea in greater depth as we go along.

Haidt on the Rationalist Delusion

http://youtu.be/kI1wQswRVaU

That’s an indictment. My indictment is far harsher.