Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • Morality by Continuous Recursive Disambiguation and Expansion

    Mar 4, 2020, 2:49 PM MORALITY BY CONTINUOUS RECURSIVE DISAMBIGUATION AND EXPANSION (example) (core)

    a) Morality = Theology and Philosophy b) Ethics = Philosophy and Law c) Reciprocity= Law and ScienceEXPANSION:

    1. Reciprocity.

    2. Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (defection).

    3. Reciprocity against property-in-toto within the limits of proportionality.

    4. Reciprocity in display word and deed, against property-in-toto, within the limits of proportionality.

    5. Reciprocity in display word and deed by productive, fully informed(truthful), voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.

    6. Reciprocity in display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests, as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.

    7. Reciprocity of display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.

    8. Reciprocity consisting in bi-directional voluntary transfer, by display, word, and deed, of due diligence against error bias and deceit, using tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; of productive, voluntary, demonstrated interests – whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.

  • Morality by Continuous Recursive Disambiguation and Expansion

    Mar 4, 2020, 2:49 PM MORALITY BY CONTINUOUS RECURSIVE DISAMBIGUATION AND EXPANSION (example) (core)

    a) Morality = Theology and Philosophy b) Ethics = Philosophy and Law c) Reciprocity= Law and ScienceEXPANSION:

    1. Reciprocity.

    2. Reciprocity within the limits of proportionality (defection).

    3. Reciprocity against property-in-toto within the limits of proportionality.

    4. Reciprocity in display word and deed, against property-in-toto, within the limits of proportionality.

    5. Reciprocity in display word and deed by productive, fully informed(truthful), voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.

    6. Reciprocity in display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests, as described by property in toto, free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.

    7. Reciprocity of display word and deed by due diligence against error bias and deceit, by tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; and of productive, voluntary transfer(exchange), of demonstrated interests as whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.

    8. Reciprocity consisting in bi-directional voluntary transfer, by display, word, and deed, of due diligence against error bias and deceit, using tests of realism, naturalism and categorical, internal, operational, external consistency, rational choice, including full accounting, within stated limits; of productive, voluntary, demonstrated interests – whether personal, several, or common; free of imposition of against the demonstrated interests of others, within the limits of restitution, within limits of possible due diligence, and warrantied within the limits of liability.

  • Q: The propertarian view on lending with interest?

    Q: The propertarian view on lending with interest? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/q-the-propertarian-view-on-lending-with-interest/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 20:37:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266468783830466565

  • Advanced P-Law of Commons: Responsibility

    Advanced P-Law of Commons: Responsibility https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/advanced-p-law-of-commons-responsibility/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 12:48:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266350601635540992

  • Advanced P-Law of Commons: Responsibility

    Mar 7, 2020, 5:35 PM

    —” I’m curious how P-law would handle the harmful nature drugs involve, without stamping on freedom of the individual to grow and learn from making mistakes… and what about drugs that stradle a line between medical necessity, and potential for abuse like opioids or amphetamine. … And the third aspect of the question would be: what about drugs like psychedelics, that might hold great value for both therapeutics and also potential for cognitive and spiritual enhancement without much risk to physical health? ….How would a propertarian society manage these risks and issues with adult maturity and intelligence, while avoiding descending into the unproductive chaos like we have in the current drug laws? Just curious if an answer to these questions has yet been formulated…”— NJ Gregory

    If it’s not in the commons it’s not a problem OF the commons.If it becomes a problem of the commons then it’s a problem of the commons. Drug use itself is a commons (common property of demonstrated interest) for those who use drugs. If users constrain each other such that the users’ commons doesn’t influence the broader commons then that’s not a problem. If not then it is. In other words, it’s up to the ‘market’ to control its effect on the commons or to lose their commons for having not done so. This is the answer to almost every seemingly difficult question. The problem is the unwillingness of members of risky commons to police their property. That’s why drugs are outlawed. Because they remove the agency of the user, and produce malincentives for the distributor. This is another way of saying all groups in which one has an interest and obtains a value also transfers to one a liability for the group one sustains. Ergo: collective punishment exists, we just don’t speak of it honestly. If we did, then we would cause say, certain religions to control their members or lose the entire religion and all members.

  • Advanced P-Law of Commons: Responsibility

    Mar 7, 2020, 5:35 PM

    —” I’m curious how P-law would handle the harmful nature drugs involve, without stamping on freedom of the individual to grow and learn from making mistakes… and what about drugs that stradle a line between medical necessity, and potential for abuse like opioids or amphetamine. … And the third aspect of the question would be: what about drugs like psychedelics, that might hold great value for both therapeutics and also potential for cognitive and spiritual enhancement without much risk to physical health? ….How would a propertarian society manage these risks and issues with adult maturity and intelligence, while avoiding descending into the unproductive chaos like we have in the current drug laws? Just curious if an answer to these questions has yet been formulated…”— NJ Gregory

    If it’s not in the commons it’s not a problem OF the commons.If it becomes a problem of the commons then it’s a problem of the commons. Drug use itself is a commons (common property of demonstrated interest) for those who use drugs. If users constrain each other such that the users’ commons doesn’t influence the broader commons then that’s not a problem. If not then it is. In other words, it’s up to the ‘market’ to control its effect on the commons or to lose their commons for having not done so. This is the answer to almost every seemingly difficult question. The problem is the unwillingness of members of risky commons to police their property. That’s why drugs are outlawed. Because they remove the agency of the user, and produce malincentives for the distributor. This is another way of saying all groups in which one has an interest and obtains a value also transfers to one a liability for the group one sustains. Ergo: collective punishment exists, we just don’t speak of it honestly. If we did, then we would cause say, certain religions to control their members or lose the entire religion and all members.

  • In P-Law Whose Money Do You Want to Waste?

    In P-Law Whose Money Do You Want to Waste? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/in-p-law-whose-money-do-you-want-to-waste/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 01:18:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266177046465708032

  • A Little Debate

    Mar 11, 2020, 8:35 AM

    —“Morality is objective, reciprocity is not. Truth has no bearing on morality, reciprocity totally depends on truth”—Robert Danis

    i cant understand that

    —“that’s okay. I only believe in truth.”—Robert Danis

    i think you’re lying by pretense

    —“One person’s moral compass is different than another person’s moral compass. But the truth is a constant. example I believe abortion is wrong. Why? It not for a moral reason, it’s because in truth you’re stealing the future of someone else. My lens is different than yours I’m an American “I hold these truths to be self-evident” good morals are based on beliefs not truths. Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings. All of this comes from my background, look at what I did for employment.”—

    I can’t tell if you’re unskilled or dishonest. You are conflating moral(decidable, reciprocal), moral norm, and moral preference(choice).

    “…good morals are based on beliefs not truths…”

    Belief = Preference (arbitrary). Your preference of moral preference is based on beliefs and beliefs are arbitrary.

    “Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings”

    Correct. Morality = Reciprocity. Moral norms may or may not be in fact moral. Moral preferences are arbitrary and may or may not be in fact moral. But… disputes over moral norms and moral preferences may be decidable [by test of reciprocity].

    —“I will make it simple for you I don’t think morals have anything to do with reciprocity. I believe reciprocity is based on truth. You can disagree if you want but I’m not going to change because I only believe in truth. You do a lot of writing and say nothing. one person’s morals another person morals are not the same but truth is always the same.”—

    One person’s moral preference varies, just like one person’s interpretation opinion varies, morality like truth is decidable, which is why we have laws, and why laws express moral norms within group, and why reciprocity expresses morality across groups regardless of group preferences. Reciprocity is the structure of the world: personal bias reflects your reproductive strategy, normative bias reflects your group strategy, international uniformity of reciprocity in international law reflects evolutionary necessity. Not because we choose reciprocity. But because reciprocity is the only means of resolving conflicts. In other words, your opinion on the moral, your moral bias, or your moral preference, are just as likely to be false as your opinions on any other subject. The test of whether you are wrong is reciprocity. So: Moral (reciprocity) <- Moral Norm (group discovered reciprocity) <- Moral Preference-Bias (individual search for reciprocity) Give me an example of morality that is not decidable by reciprocity (other than abortion). I am very good at what I do. I am probably the best at what I do. I do not err. I am preventing you from making the false claim that morals are relative, rather than moral bias is simply a preference.

  • A Little Debate

    Mar 11, 2020, 8:35 AM

    —“Morality is objective, reciprocity is not. Truth has no bearing on morality, reciprocity totally depends on truth”—Robert Danis

    i cant understand that

    —“that’s okay. I only believe in truth.”—Robert Danis

    i think you’re lying by pretense

    —“One person’s moral compass is different than another person’s moral compass. But the truth is a constant. example I believe abortion is wrong. Why? It not for a moral reason, it’s because in truth you’re stealing the future of someone else. My lens is different than yours I’m an American “I hold these truths to be self-evident” good morals are based on beliefs not truths. Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings. All of this comes from my background, look at what I did for employment.”—

    I can’t tell if you’re unskilled or dishonest. You are conflating moral(decidable, reciprocal), moral norm, and moral preference(choice).

    “…good morals are based on beliefs not truths…”

    Belief = Preference (arbitrary). Your preference of moral preference is based on beliefs and beliefs are arbitrary.

    “Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings”

    Correct. Morality = Reciprocity. Moral norms may or may not be in fact moral. Moral preferences are arbitrary and may or may not be in fact moral. But… disputes over moral norms and moral preferences may be decidable [by test of reciprocity].

    —“I will make it simple for you I don’t think morals have anything to do with reciprocity. I believe reciprocity is based on truth. You can disagree if you want but I’m not going to change because I only believe in truth. You do a lot of writing and say nothing. one person’s morals another person morals are not the same but truth is always the same.”—

    One person’s moral preference varies, just like one person’s interpretation opinion varies, morality like truth is decidable, which is why we have laws, and why laws express moral norms within group, and why reciprocity expresses morality across groups regardless of group preferences. Reciprocity is the structure of the world: personal bias reflects your reproductive strategy, normative bias reflects your group strategy, international uniformity of reciprocity in international law reflects evolutionary necessity. Not because we choose reciprocity. But because reciprocity is the only means of resolving conflicts. In other words, your opinion on the moral, your moral bias, or your moral preference, are just as likely to be false as your opinions on any other subject. The test of whether you are wrong is reciprocity. So: Moral (reciprocity) <- Moral Norm (group discovered reciprocity) <- Moral Preference-Bias (individual search for reciprocity) Give me an example of morality that is not decidable by reciprocity (other than abortion). I am very good at what I do. I am probably the best at what I do. I do not err. I am preventing you from making the false claim that morals are relative, rather than moral bias is simply a preference.

  • Rights don’t exist without numbers.

    Mar 13, 2020, 12:58 PM Rights don’t exist without numbers. Therefore maintain the numbers necessary to create and maintain rights. All rights must be reciprocal or cannot be rights, and are but claims on others to tolerate your irreciprocity and prevent their retaliation against your irreciprocity.

    —“My rights exist completely apart from any “numbers” or your opinion or agreement. Inherent human right to life, privacy and property. No amount of numbers has the right to violate that for me. I don’t have the right to violate those for you.”— A Noob

    You’re demanding behavior from others. To construct a right you must create either a normative or institutional condition under which you have others to appeal to, to enforce it. Natural rights are a desire. They must be brought into existence through production by men. So your desire for rights, or demand for rights, does not mean they exist, any more than a communist’s desire for rights of equidistribution exist. Rights are made by force of men, in normative or institutional form. Moral rights are limited to natural rights: reciprocity. Period. The technique employed in libertarianism presumes that the willingness of the female is transferrable to the male. But it doesn’t. females have intrinsic sexual and reproductive value. Men do not. Men must create reciprocal defense to have value. This is as always the foundational error of all jewish libertarian (Rothbardian) thought: the pretense of the female.