As far as I know I’m the only one arguing that the autistic spectrum should be described as the “solipsistic-autistic spectrum”, but I might argue that I’m just using loaded language to demonstrate and allow us to criticize the failure of the female side of the spectrum as well as the male. That is because women are are as comfortable using solipsistic arguments as we are using autistic. However, I’m pretty sure that the basic thesis is correct. That is, that most of these brain states are produce by in-utero chemistry.

Baron-Cohen, S. 1995. Mindblindness: An Essay on Autism and Theory of Mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
______. 2002. “The Extreme Male Brain Theory of Autism.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6:248–54.
______. 2009. “Autism: The Empathizing-Systemizing (E-S) Theory.” In “The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience,” special issue of Annals of the New York Academy of Science 1156:68–80.
Lucas, P., and A. Sheeran. 2006. “Asperger’s Syndrome and the Eccentricity and Genius of Jeremy Bentham.” Journal of Bentham Studies 8:1–20.

 

I love bibliographies of major works. On my site I collect reading lists and the biographies of the authors that I respect most.

Today, I’m working on restructuring my chapter order to be less about libertarianism, and to accommodate the improvements in my arguments over the past year. So I am working through Hiadt’s bibliographies trying to see if there is anything that I haven’t read.

And, you know, there really isn’t. Which scares me. lol. Although, it really makes sense because we’re very close in age, and went through our intellectual development during the same period, and information that counteracts the progressive fantasy just sort of exploded during the last thirty years. I just was later in my development because I was distracted by ‘business’ when younger and it’s really only over the past ten years that I have been able to devote such concentrated time to my work.

When you get down to it, my major (almost exclusive) influences have been: (Poincare + Brouwer + Taleb + Popper) + Hayek + Duchesne + Stephen Hicks + Kahneman + (Hoppe + Haidt). Haidt and Hoppe the most influential.

I made the mistake of trying to solve the problem Haidt did with computer science (artificial intelligence) because at the time I was in school, psychology was still in the postmodern catastrophe that was progressivism. It was gut classes for stupid people. But at that point in time, despite the fact taht I understood the problem was one of emotions and objects, I couldn’t solve it. Haidt did.

But it worked out as a benefit because computer science is an operational methodology and taught me how to think without the nonsensical platonic categories that are universal to that ‘lost’ discipline we call philosophy. You can say fuzzy things in philosophy, logic and math but you cannot actually operationalize them with a computer, and a computer is just a very fast way of conducting human operations (switches).

I did finally understand that voluntary exchange, property, inventory, substitution and acquisitiveness are the means of creating an artificial intelligence, but I have less interest in that field than I do in formal institutions of cooperation. So this is where I’m spending my time.

Anyway, collecting these biographies has been fascinating because if you collect enough of them you see that very few works by very few authors have any material impact in social and political science.

It’s been a 2500 year journey to try to solve the problem of cooperation. But we are getting very close to it.

 

Well, I have no idea if that’s meant as a compliment or an insult. Of course, I consider myself part of the Dark Enlightenment (NeoReactionary movement). Mencius uses continental arguments which frustrate the hell out of me, since I’m trying to reform libertarian reasoning and formal institutions by basing it instead on unloaded, objective language of the ratio-scientific method.

But that said, it’s a fair association to make, whether compliment or criticism.

Just surprised me and made me laugh.
Photo: “Doolittle is the Moldbug of Facebook”

COMMENTS
Andriy Drozda, Eric Blankenburg, Eric Field and 5 others like this.

Michael Pattinson
Ha ha ha

James Santagata
lol

Jason Conway
My immediate association between Doolittle and Moldbug was the word ‘prolific’.

Curt Doolittle
Jason… Yeah, I thought the same thing. lol

 

(important)(insight)(parsimony)

The trick is to fill moral and ethical vacuums with rationally adjudicable property rights rather than the state, religious authority, superstition, or some other rule or taboo.

The rothbardian definition of property will not produce rational incentives sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity. Definitions of property, like rules of common law, must evolve with the complexity of the society to reflect all possible ethical and moral constraints such that ALTERNATIVE ethical and moral constraints – of which the state is only one form – do not evolve to take the place of missing moral and ethical constraints. Humans will find a way to fill a moral or ethical vacuum because transaction costs of the moral and ethical vacuum are simply prohibitively high. That is why societies have eccentric moral codes, laws, rules and rituals: they have no method – like the common law – of advancing property rights by rational means. Property is our only rational means of advancing prohibition on unethical and immoral behavior and thereby driving out the high transaction costs they create.

For libertarianism to be palatable and rationally preferable for other than a marginally indifferent minority, we must repair the definition of property that is adjudicable under the common law, to reflect the entire scope of moral and ethical constraints. Moral intuitions do vary in amplitude and priority but those that apply to cooperation are instinctual prohibitions on in-group free riding: violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by negative externality, free riding, socialization of losses, privatization of gains, corruption and conspiracy – and every permutation and possibility in between.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev

 

(cross posted for archival purposes)

Hoppe got libertarianism “right-er” than anyone else.

It is nonsensical to criticize a philosopher for getting tangential ideas wrong. I can list any number of mistakes Hans makes but they are not mistakes that are central to his argument, that democratic government proper cannot function without eventually causing more harm than good, and that the solution to this problem is property.

My criticism is that his rothbardian definition of property will not produce rational incentives sufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity, and that definitions of property, like rules of common law, must evolve with the complexity of the society to reflect all possible ethical and moral constraints such that ALTERNATIVE ethical and moral constraints – of which the state is only one form of error – do not evolve to take the place of missing moral and ethical constraints. (that is why societies have strange moral codes, rules and rituals: they have no method of advancing property rights by rational means. But humans will find a way to fill a moral or ethical vacuum.)

All philosophers take an idea and expand it to the point of failure. That is what all philosophers have done. Hoppe came closer than anyone else.

It is a libertarian failing to treat our idea-people as prophets rather than philosophers. A philosopher produces ideas. It is not necessary for all Ideas produced by a philosopher to be correct unless you simply want to appeal to authority rather than understanding the philosopher’s arguments. It is only necessary that philosophers produce ideas that like science, increase our understanding and capacity for beneficial action. Hoppe has done that.

I am working very hard to ‘clean’ libertarianism of stupid ideas by basing it on science rather than on continental and cosmopolitan rationalism. Science is a superior tool to pure reason. All our ‘flaky’ ideas are the product of insufficient science. But we must forgive the previous generations because the science was not available to them.

It’s available to us. Even without science Hoppe got liberty almost entirely right. More right than anyone else. So arguing over tangential issues does not discredit his contributions to liberty.

Curt Doolittle

COMMENTS
Eric Field
Nice. Dialectical libertarianism is what thick libertarians pay lip service to. Hoppe has definitely advanced the refinement of libertarianism.

 

While Paternalism (headmanship) has been universal, when insurance and gathering were more important than productivity and warfare, matrilinealism seemed to determine what limited property was important (relations) and what inheritance and therefore ownership. But when productivity became more important than insurance, patrilinealism seemed to develop into the primary social order determining what increasingly complex property was important (livestock, territory, agrarian production, built capital). Now that women can seek rents via the state, we are seeing property return to communalism and men attempt to preserve their control over it.

Without families, I do not yet understand how civilization can function any more than I can understand how an economy can function without prices and incentives.

 

How much longer will we leave ethics to philosophical pseudoscience?

ARGUMENTATIVE METHODS

  1. Mythical (Allegorical) (Theological)
  2. Psychological (Moral) (The Anglo Scottish Enlightenment)
  3. Rational (Kantian) (Germanic Libertarians)
  4. Historical (analogical)
  5. Empirical (positivist)
  6. Ratio-empirical ( scientific )
  7. Descriptive (purely descriptive statements free of analogy).

See Degrees Of Political Argument

QUESTION:

Which philosophers who advocate liberty rely on which argumentative methods?

(I can tell you that I rely upon ratio-empirical arguments.)

 

Without states how is liberty enforced?

It’s enforced aristocratically: by violence under the ternary logic of cooperation: Null-violence, 0-boycott, 1-cooperation.

If another individual desires property rights we grant them to one another in exchange for fighting to preserve those rights from all comers.

*We grant that right regardless of state, country, nation, or boundary*.

That is the origin and institution of aristocratic egalitarian liberty. Egalitarian meaning: “anyone who is willing to fight for property rights will be given property rights by all others in exchange.” And by contrast, those who do not demand property rights, will not fight for them, shall not be granted them.

Everything else is masturbatory begging for permission by slaves.

You cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.

COMMENTS

Curt Doolittle
(Putting violence back into liberty one paragraph at a time.)

Lee C Waaks
If by violence, you mean private defense agencies armed with a can of whoop ass, I am all for it.

Adrian Nielsen
There can still be an institution that engages in violence but not a state. The problem with the state: social contract.
Only pacifist libertarians are against violence. Except for them, violence within liberty is not a novel idea.

Darcy Neal Donnelly
How do you defend you life (property) against a mosquito (parasite) or a pack of wolves (predators)? Do you beg or do you engage to the death?

Curt Doolittle
How have we done it in history? Militia

 

I‘m an aristocratic egalitarian. I am willing to grant full spectrum Propertarian property rights to all who are equally willing to fight for it in word and deed to the best of their ability.

That is the ancient source of liberty: the aristocratic egalitarianism of the indo-europeans.

Libertarians from the Rothbardian movement are largely a collection of ‘pussy-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’, ‘stupid-tarians’, ‘aspie-tarians’, ‘libertines’, and ‘dishonest-cheat-itarians’ who can be divided into two camps: those fooled by obscurantism, and those who are naturally liars, cheats, and dishonest.

Ditch ghetto libertarianism as the immoral dishonest scheme that it is.

Come home to aristocratic egalitarianism.

Take liberty by force, for moral reasons, rather than beg for it for immoral reasons.

 

Libertarians get lost in introspection. The central problem of creating an anarchic society is fully articulating property rights such that they are possible to rationally adjudicate under the common law.

It is this rational ability to adjudicate differences under the common law that makes possible ‘rule of law’. Without such rational articulation, rule by man’s discretion is necessary.

The sufficiency of that articulated list of property is what determines if transaction costs are low enough that it’s rational for people to voluntarily join a polity in which plans can be made, and disputes can be resolved, according to that list of property rights.

As I have written recently, libertarians (foolishly) discount these transaction costs because they tend to be above, and interact above, the threshold at which moral behavior is dominant.

The NAP is either an insufficient test, or private property rights that are intersubjectively verifiable are an insufficient scope. Propertarianism extends property to that which people demonstrate they believe is their just property, and places the burden on the individuals with the greater knowledge. “Seller Beware”.

 
Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.