Human History as Tribes not Governments

S tatists and Priests love to teach the history of governments to give them legitimacy. But just as mathematics ought to be taught as a sequence of historical problems humans had to overcome, and we would understand it very easily, if we taught human history as the evolution of how our tribes evolved and expanded (now that we can teach it) we would find a very different world that was much easier to understand. And we would be a lot more concerned with peoples than corporate governments.

Human history is not a very long period to cover. It’s a few thousand years. if you study land masses at geologic time, it’s easy to understand. If you study the solar system at galactic time, it’s easy to understand. If you study man at tribal time, it’s easy to understand. If you study technologies at technological time, it’s easy to understand. But if you teach these things all as a cacophony of unrelated events without a surrounding narrative it’s confusing as hell.

Our myths make history seem long, mystical and confusing. But history of man’s evolution once we develop domestication is pretty simple. Before that it’s actually trivial, because it’s such a slow process.

What humanists won’t like is that each wave of increasingly aggressive human wiped out the previous wave of less aggressive people.

First Principles of Propertarian Ethics: Non-Parasitism and Therefore Rational Cooperation

(revised and expanded)(worth repeating)

Propertarian Ethics:

0 — Man is a costly form of life in an unpredictable universe.

1 – Man must acquire resources to live within this unpredictable universe.

2 – Man must act to acquire and inventory resources:

3 — Man must defend that which he has acquired and inventoried. (His property is demonstrated by what he defends from loss, and what he retaliates for imposition of costs upon.)

4 – Man demonstrates that he acquires and defends:
……4.1 Life, Time, Rest, Memories, Actions, Social Status, Reputation

……4.2 Mates (access to sex/reproduction), Children (genetics), Familial Relations (security), Non-Familial Relations (utility),Consanguineous property (tribal and family ties)

……4.3 Organizational ties (work), Knowledge ties (skills, crafts), Insurance (community)

……4.4 Several Property: Those things external to our bodies that we claim a monopoly of control over, having obtained them without imposing costs upon others.

……4.5 Shareholder Property: Recorded And Quantified Shareholder Property (physical shares in a tradable asset), Commons: Unrecorded and Unquantified Shareholder Property (shares in commons), Artificial Property: (property created by fiat agreement) Intellectual Property.

……4.6 Informal (Normative) Property: Our norms: manners, ethics, morals, myths, and rituals that consist of our social portfolio and which make our social order possible.

……4.7 Formal Institutional Property: Formal (Procedural) Institutions: Our institutions: Religion (including the secular religion), Government, Laws.

5 – Man must act cooperatively to disproportionately improve acquisition of resources. (Cooperation is disproportionately more rewarding than any other activity.)

6 – Man must only cooperate where it is beneficial and preferable to non-cooperation. As such all cooperative actions or sets of actions, must result in:
……5.1 Productive (increases property)
……5.2 Fully Informed (without deceit – a form of discounting)
……5.3 Warrantied (promise of non parasitism warranty of restitution)
……5.4 Voluntary Exchange
……5.5 Free of negative externality (imposes no costs on the property of third parties).

7 – Man must act to preserve and extend cooperation to preserve the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Cooperation is itself a disproportionately valuable scarcity)

8 – Man acts to preserve and extend cooperation by the suppression of parasitism that creates the disincentive to cooperate, and therefore decreases the disproportionate rewards of acquisition through cooperation. (Man evolved necessary and expensive moral intuitions to preserve cooperation – including expensive forms of punishment of offenders.)

9 – Man engages in parasitism by:
……7.1 violence,
……7.2 theft,
……7.3 extortion, blackmail, racketeering.
……7.3 fraud, fraud by obscurantism, fraud by moralizing, fraud by omission,
……7.4 externality, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses,
……7.5 conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, war and genocide.

(Summary: Violence, Theft, Extortion, Fraud, Externality, Conspiracy.)

10 – Man suppresses parasitism by threats of interpersonal violence, promises of interpersonal violence, interpersonal violence, interpersonal ostracization from cooperation, organized ostracization via norms and commerce, when he must by remuneration, and when he can by organized violence in law and war.

……10.1 Man possesses three weapons of influence: violence(imposition of material costs), gossip(imposition of opportunity costs: ostracization-inclusion), and remuneration(transfer of assets: exchange).

……10.2 Man uses all three weapons of influence, usually in concert, and in different degrees: consisting of a ‘chord of coercion’.

……10.3 Some men specialize in one weapon of influence: Warriors, Sheriffs and judges: Violence; priests and public intellectuals: Gossip; Organizers of Production: Remuneration.

11 – The most rapid means by which man can organize the suppression of parasitism is by defining property rights as all demonstrated property, and creating a court of universal standing under the common law, under the rule of law before a jury of his peers – since any innovation in parasitism is suppressed by the creation of a new prohibition with the first suit adjudicated. (Common, organically evolutionary law most rapidly prevents expansion of demonstrated parasitic opportunities.)

12 – A market for goods and services produces consumables, but a market for commons produces non-consumables. Non-consumable goods that provide utility whether those goods be privately constructed (use by private shareholders only) or publicly constructed (use by all citizen-shareholders). Commons (whether physical, normative or institutional) provide a disproportionate return to shareholders by preventing consumption and preserving utility.

13 – Majority rule is a sufficient means of decision making for small homogenous groups who must select priorities to achieve using limited resources.  Majority rule is insufficient means of decision making for large heterogeneous groups with conflicting preferences.  In heterogeneous groups monopoly rule by majority rule, is merely a vehicle for justifying thefts.  Homogenous groups may need to select priorities among desirable ends, but because heterogeneous groups have incompatible ends, heterogeneous groups need means of cooperation on means despite incompatible ends: agreements by which difference can be mitigated through mutually beneficial exchanges.  As such the purpose of government is the construction of commons by creating a market for the contractual production of commons.

14 – Moral, and therefore non-parasitic, agreements between parties that are productive, fully informed, voluntary, and warrantied need no assent (approval) from third parties.  Instead, all such agreements need only refrain from externalities: the imposition of costs on the property-en-toto of third parties.  As such, in any market for the production of commons, assent is not necessary for the construction of exhanges between classes with differing interests. Instead such contracts must only survive criticism: adjudication. As such anyone can sue to invalidate a contract.  But no one’s approval is necessary for such contracts.  As such the construction of commons requires not ascent. Instead, the prevention of a contract requires dissent that survives adjudication.
(summary: dissent and adjudication not assent and confirmation)

15 – division of cognitive labor– moral specialization and therefore moral blindness – exchanges as a means of calculation by trades of cooperation bretween specailists.

16 – the family-regulation of reproduction–

17 – Division of houses by cognitive labor —

13 – A condition of both interpersonal morality both forces all human action necessary for man’s survival into productive participation in the market by denying parasitism, and reduces or eliminates transaction costs (frictions due to risk), which in turn maximizes the potential economic velocity of the group.

14 – A condition of liberty is constructed when all men, including those who participate in the construction of commons – members of the government – are equally bound by the prohibition on parasitism: the common law against parasitism. (Morality is a synonym for non-parasitism. Liberty is a synonym for a moral – meaning non-parasitic – government.)

15 – If one does not engage in parasitism by doing so, the forcible increase of the suppression of others’ free riding is always by definition moral and just. This increases the possibilities of prosperity for all men. (Legal colonialism is moral. Economic colonialism is not.) (Aristocracy is obliged to increase the pool of aristocratic people whenever possible, and affordable.)

There is no competitive strategy greater than the suppression of parasitism in all it’s forms. Because all human effort is limited to the market for productive ends, and all market activity is conducted under the lowest possible speculative friction.

The optimum group evolutionary strategy is to suppress all parasitism, while constantly driving up it’s intelligence by suppressing the reproduction of its lower classes (non performers). This causes no harm, and produces the greatest and longest term competitive benefit.)

If many groups follow this strategy, the largest group with the highest median IQ and aggression (competitive energy) will produce the most innovation.  Anti parasitism is eugenic, and parasitism is dysgenic.

Some groups cannot compete. So they will continue to act as parasites. (Gypsies).

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine

Contractual Commons: Law is Discovered, Contracts and Exchanges are Made.

We can produce a market for un-consumable commons using a government just as we produce a market for consumable private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. But there is no reason whatsoever, that knowing how to construct the common law, government should be capable of producing law. It cannot. Law is discovered, contracts and exchanges are made.
  1. Economic velocity (wealth) is determined by the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding/imposed costs). This eliminates transaction costs. 

  2.  Central power originates to centralize parasitism and increase material costs, by suppressing local parasitism and as a consequenceeliminated local transaction costs. And using those costs to pay for the suppression of local parasitism.  We trade expensive local transaction costs for less expensive costs of suppression.

  3. Once centralized those costs can be incrementally eliminated. But if and only if an institutional means of deciding conflicts can be used to replace personal judgement as a means of deciding conflicts.   

  4.  The only means of producing institutional rules to replace personal judgement (provision of ‘decidability’) is in the independent, common, evolutionary law resting upon a prohibition on parasitism/free-riding/imposed costs (negatives), codified as property rights (positives): productive, warrantied, fully informed, voluntary transfer(exchange), free of negative externalities. 

  5. Suppression of violence and theft is fairly easy because the actions are existential and the results obvious.  But as we increasingly suppress violence and theft, people resort to fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by suggestion, imposition of costs by externality, corruption, and conspiracy. So suppression of these more complex thefts requires testimony and decidability. 

  6. Language evolved to justify (morality), negotiate (deceive), and rally and shame (gossip), and only tangentially and late to describe (truth). Truth as we understand it is an invention and an unnatural one – which is why it is unique to the west, and why it has taken philosophers so long to understand it. However, westerners evolved a military epistemology because they relied upon self-financing warriors voluntarily participating, as well as the jury and truth telling. (The marginal difference in intellectual ability apparently not common – they were all smart enough. and such testimony was in itself ‘training’.) 

  7. We cannot expect or demand truthful testimony from people unless they know how to produce it. ie: Education in what I would consider the religion of the west: “the true, the moral and the beautiful”. So I consider this education ‘sacred’ not just utilitarian. 

  8. We cannot demand truth and law from people unless it is not against their interests: ie: the only universal political system is Nationalism, because groups can act truthfully internally, truthfully externally, and can use trade negotiations to neutralized competitive differences. And with nationalism, individuals cannot escape paying the cost of transforming their own societies, and themselves, and laying the burden of doing so upon other societies. 

  9. Commons are a profound competitive advantage. Territorial, institutional, normative, genetic, physical, and economic (industrial) commons are a profound advantage to any group.

    The west is the most successful producer of commons so it is even more important to the west. So we must provide a means of producing those commons.

    The difference between market for private goods and services (where competition in production is a good incentive) and corporate (public) goods, where we must prevent privatization of gains an socialization of losses, requires that we provide monopoly protection of those goods from consumption.

    But does not require that we provide monopoly contribution to them. Commons require only that the people willing to pay for them, do so. Otherwise there is no demonstrated preference for that commons.

    Insurance is a commons and I will leave that for another time.

    Return on investment (dividends) are the product of commons. I will leave that for another time as well.

    The central point is that we can produce a market for common goods using government just as we do in the market private goods. But that law and commons are two different things. and that there is no reason whatsoever, knowing how to construct the common law, that government should be capable of producing law. it cannot.

    Law is. It cannot be created. Only identified. 

Public Economics of Marriage

Marriage is, first and foremost, a contract between two parties, husband and wife. And this contract is originally set up to last for all eternity — till death do them part. As such, two married people (Family, in the following) form an economic union with responsibilities deriving from the contract, if so specified explicitly, or from societal norms accompanying it (yes, including current Zeitgeist, and prevailing moral concepts), and their union’s main purpose is to control reproduction and property.

From the fact that a family is set up to be ever-lasting, the main purpose of controlling reproduction and property, and basic economics, we can derive a few things:

  1. Any one person is either member of a Family as defined above, or not.
  2. A family can allocate their resources (labor or capital) to produce goods, and either consume them, or invest (“save”) them.
  3. A family can engage in (re)production.
  4. Derivative from 2 and 3: A family will engage in long-term planning to optimize their inter-temporal resource-allocation. Depending on future time orientation, this planning horizon may span a few weeks, or a few centuries.
  5. A family that engages in long-term planning can probably be relied upon in/by another family’s long-term plans, given coincidence of wants.
  6. Derivative from 5: Families can engage in mutually beneficial trade with other families.
  7. Derivative from 4, 5 and 7: In any society, Families can form cartels, to exclude less-reliable parties.
  8. Derivative from 8 and 4: Any one single person will be found less reliable than any one family, cartel-breakers notwithstanding.
  9. Cartel-breakers will benefit in the short-term, and be punished in the long-term. Bear in mind that the famous “Bromkonvention”-case study, which Libertarians like to harp over, does not work in real life. Cartels form all the time, for mutual benefit.
  10. A family member (husband or wife) can suspend the marital covenant, and engage in cheating (“cheater”, in the following)
  11. Derivative from 10 and 1: Any one cheating family member (“cheater”) must do so with either a non-family-member, or a fellow cheating family member (“cheater”).
  12. For any cartel to remain stable, cartel members must be in a position to force high costs on any cartel breaker.
  13. Derivative from 6, 8, 9, and 12: Families must levy a high tax on whoever is discovered cheater, or enabler of cheaters (It *does* take two to Tango).
  14. Currently, the divorce laws enable “no fault divorce”, with basic separation of economic goods (aka, “She gets half.”)
  15. Even if women bear no children, women typically earn less during their lifetime. However, for equal qualification and ambition, women earn the same.
  16. Derivative from 14 and 15: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has weakened a man’s position to get away with cheating, without losing half his Family’s assets. In other words, he loses more than he contributed to that marriage, on average.
  17. Derivative from 14 and 15, pt 2.: The introduction of no-fault divorce laws has strengthened a woman’s position to get away with cheating, all the while retaining half her Family’s assets. In other words, she gains more than she contributed to that marriage, on average.
  18. Publicly known cheaters, and their enablers, will be discriminated against economically (in matters as obtaining income and credit).

Cheating, like lying, doesn’t pay off.

QED.

Refreshing Memories: Charts.

887581_10153474968127264_8807124149978958402_o 11696295_10153474967962264_2995715959072777303_o 11692615_10153474967622264_7716326099992662396_n 11063750_10153474944282264_9133969769393891558_n 11267369_10153474944002264_7417392944886435057_o 11717539_10153474943917264_7662934389649663292_o 11745560_10153474968372264_6446896008353726925_n

We Have A Simple Choice

Truth, Trade and Liberty (Propertarianism) 

–vs–

Lies, Takings, and Authority (Socialism)

 

(Choose wisely.)

What Is Critical Rationalism?

Critical Rationalism is an epistemology developed for scientific inquiry. It is the inverse of justificationary rationalism.

ASSERTIONS:
1) That justificationism tells us us nothing about truth content (you can support something as much as you want but that does not make it true.)

2) That the means of creating an hypothesis are irrelevant. Instead, if hypothesis survives all possible criticism, it remains a truth candidate.

3) That the evolutionary sequence: intuition, hypothesis, theory, law, and tautology applies universally, and that justificationary language is merely false.

4) That even if we identify a very parsimonious truth candidate with broad explanatory power, we may never know if it is the most parsimonious truth candidate possible (“the truth”).

5) That we cannot choose between the likelihood of competing theories (“critical preference”). (I see this as a guiding logical or moral principle but not an empirical one.)

SUMMARY
One’s testimony (promise of truth) can rely upon:
……..1) Justification: An Impersonal Proof of Truth;
–or–
……..2) Criticism: A Personal Warranty against imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, and deception.

Since the first is impossible, we are left with the second.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine (London)

How Can I Reform Critical Rationalists?

(important question)

Is it hopeless? In other words, I think I understand the (libertarian) cognitive bias that draws people to critical rationalism. But that bias is in favor of stimulation junkies – novelty and the signaling value of superior intellect.

1) Now, first, how do I show that it’s one thing to acknowledge the necessity of critical rationalism (theoretical darwinism), and another thing to PREFER critical rationalism because it suits a cognitive bias. It’s one thing to prefer invention and another thing to say that if critical rationalism is true, then why can’t we place the same constraints on public speech in economics and politics that we place upon publishing of scientific papers? If we can punish people for fraudulent publication in the physical sciences (we do) then why can’t we punish people for fraudulent publication in the social sciences? If we can punish liars in court then why can’t we punish liars in in politics, when politics is a vehicle for theft? There isn’t any difference. When we use justificationism then we argue that something is true. When we use criticism – testimonialism – we argue only that we have done due diligence against falsehoods. When we place goods and services in the market we require implied warranty and due diligence from harm, and often we require bonding and insurance. So why can we not require the same for political speech? We don’t allow physical hazards, we don’t allow verbal hazards (fire in a theatre), so why do we allow political and economic hazards?

2) Second, that the critical process of truth telling (laundering imaginary content, error, bias, wishful thinking, deception and lying) is universal, not specific to science? That the scientific method as used in the physical sciences is merely incomplete? That it is also usually mis-stated(falsification, limits, parsimony, existence proof.) That there is no difference between production of a good, the invention of a process, or the development of a theory, other than the value one places on the output? So that science, testimony and philosophy are synonyms if not tautologies?

3) Third, that it appears that critical preference is a logical but not empirical constraint. In practice it appears that in both human cooperation (social science) and physical science, that the least cost means of investigation does appear to provide the shortest path to discovery, because physical processes, evolutionary processes, and rational incentives operate by the shortest path. While greater empirical content may be found by other means, the least cost appears to be the most predictably productive for both falsification and for discovery.

I don’t tolerate the invectives of some of the ideologues, but it would be interesting if someone who was capable could help me understand if this is possible or not.

Thanks

Curt

Paul Krugman: Slow Roasting the West in Keynesian Ovens

(trigger warning)(run with this meme)

Paul;

It’s not that you’re wrong. It’s that you’re a liar. You lie by telling half truths and then loading, framing and overloading them with moral falsehoods.

You advocate institutional lying: the Keynesian economics of distorting the information system we use to cooperate so that we consume rather than accumulate capital; and you advocate theft on an epic scale: redistribution in lieu of voluntary exchanges between classes so that we accumulate normative capital rather than government scale.

So I’m not saying you’re wrong – you do manage to state half truths. I’m saying you’re a lying, immoral fraud, a racist and a genocidalist.

Putting people in ovens instead of showers is evil, immoral and dishonest. Putting people in economic and political ovens instead is just doing the same by slower means.

I mean, you’re just a better liar, but you’re doing the same thing: genocide by lying.

Curt Doolittle

(No way outta that box Paul. You’re done. Time to hang up the keyboard.)

Reflections on our Progress

(reflection) (important) (possible change in strategy)

Look at the past two years of posts by Eli Harman and Michael Philip, and look at the change in their sentence structure, length, and chain of causal relations. I’m very conscious of these things. So I see it. Johannes is a bit of a character, but at least offline, he is loosely stringing very long chains of causal explanation together and is perhaps best at constructing analysis by a chain of unloaded incentives. Look at the change in the confidence of argument of Haille Mariam-Lemar. Roman usually conducts his arguments elsewhere but he is the best at enfranchising the other side. Look at what we’ve seen from Jesse Bjorn and Mike Enoch in understanding and applying testimonial truth and propertarianism.

It’s beautiful. But what is most beautiful, is the confidence that’s emerging. One of the things I wanted to do was increase the aggressiveness of the debate so that we spoke with confidence and conviction. I wanted to create a moral high ground that we weren’t afraid to argue without guilt, and with conviction. Truth is that moral high ground. And if we create a moral high ground to demand, we can stop complaining about the status quo, and work toward institutional change. We can demand institutional change. Revolt for institutional change.

While it’s a phenomenal amount of work, I can see a future where we can train people to speak truthfully the same way we trained people to speak scientifically-morally instead of ratio-morally, and instead of religio-morally. Where we conduct exchanges rather than impose majority rule. Where we treat tribes like younger and older families rather than people to defeat or resist.

But I’m still failing in some of my ambitions. I want to change the debate from criticism of multiculturalism and racism to advocacy of familialism and aristocracy. From genetic differences to differences in distributions. From equality and inequality to aristocratic success and failure. From corporate nation-states to private tribal families. From ratio-moral argument to scientific-truthful argument. Wherein each of us helping parent our tribes into a positive future for mankind. Each of us working to suppress error, bias, wishful thinking, deceit and outright lying. Each of us building not just the truthful society, but a truthful mankind.

And with that we future we create the aristocracy of everybody we intuit that is possible, dream that is possible, but can only be achieved by diligent pursuit.

We discovered truth. We discovered testimony. We discovered the jury and the common law and rule of law. We discovered high trust. And with them we discovered science, medicine and technology and with it and them, built the civil commons as a competitive evolutionary strategy, and by consequence the civic society and the economic velocity that comes with it.

But while it may take a particular people at a particular time in a particular place to invent a technology – it is also truth that all people at later times and in various places, can adopt that technology and gain the benefits of it.

But truth and trust are hard and expensive. They are however, the most important capital for the production of innovation and prosperity for all.

Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.
July 19, 2015