Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • Everything a (((libertarian))) Says Is a Lie.

    Mar 23, 2020, 12:08 PM

    –“Property is dirived from the axiom of self ownership ie, we own ourselves. External property is defined by labor investment – either direct labor such as, “I made this walking stick” or indirect labor such as “I bought this walking stick” or also indirectly as a title gift as “I was given this walking stick” or by contract such as, “I am making payments on this walking stick.””—JWarren Prescott

    No. Property is the result of seeking cooperation, trust, loyalty, and non-conflict between warriors dependent upon one another under the strategy and tactics of voluntary entrepreneurial warfare using maneuver. Sovereignty, and once we have sovereignty, reciprocity is required. From that all western civilization arises. Now what is difference between the PRESUMPTION of an impossibility of the sophistry of ‘self ownership’ and the evidentiary necessity of sovereignty and reciprocity among voluntary warriors (see organization of piracy). The difference is using the sophistry of self ownership to circumvent the need for a universal militia responsible for creating sovereignty and reciprocity from which property is the result. Everything a (((libertarian))) says is a lie. Let me say that again

    (a) everything a libertarian says is a lie. (b) every philosophical argument is a lie. (c) if you cannot construct an argument from physical and natural law it’s a lie. (d) people lie.

  • Everything a (((libertarian))) Says Is a Lie.

    Mar 23, 2020, 12:08 PM

    –“Property is dirived from the axiom of self ownership ie, we own ourselves. External property is defined by labor investment – either direct labor such as, “I made this walking stick” or indirect labor such as “I bought this walking stick” or also indirectly as a title gift as “I was given this walking stick” or by contract such as, “I am making payments on this walking stick.””—JWarren Prescott

    No. Property is the result of seeking cooperation, trust, loyalty, and non-conflict between warriors dependent upon one another under the strategy and tactics of voluntary entrepreneurial warfare using maneuver. Sovereignty, and once we have sovereignty, reciprocity is required. From that all western civilization arises. Now what is difference between the PRESUMPTION of an impossibility of the sophistry of ‘self ownership’ and the evidentiary necessity of sovereignty and reciprocity among voluntary warriors (see organization of piracy). The difference is using the sophistry of self ownership to circumvent the need for a universal militia responsible for creating sovereignty and reciprocity from which property is the result. Everything a (((libertarian))) says is a lie. Let me say that again

    (a) everything a libertarian says is a lie. (b) every philosophical argument is a lie. (c) if you cannot construct an argument from physical and natural law it’s a lie. (d) people lie.

  • Libertarians try to escape responsibility and liability to others for the produc

    Libertarians try to escape responsibility and liability to others for the production of Commons https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/libertarians-try-to-escape-responsibility-and-liability-to-others-for-the-production-of-commons/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 19:15:33 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266085723809210368

  • Libertarians try to escape responsibility and liability to others for the production of Commons

    Mar 23, 2020, 12:49 PM LIBERTARIAN > ANARCHO CAPITALISM > NEOREACTION > SOVEREIGNTARIANISM (SOVEREIGNTY) All libertarian thought is lying to avoid the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity so that libertarians can escape responsibility and liability to others for the production of Commons. All Sovereigntarian thought enforces the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity so that our people can restore responsibility and liability to others for the production of commons. Libertarianism like all abrahamic sophisms is a feminine free rider secular theology. Sovereigntarianism (european traditional law of tort) is a masculine accountable science.

  • Libertarians try to escape responsibility and liability to others for the production of Commons

    Mar 23, 2020, 12:49 PM LIBERTARIAN > ANARCHO CAPITALISM > NEOREACTION > SOVEREIGNTARIANISM (SOVEREIGNTY) All libertarian thought is lying to avoid the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity so that libertarians can escape responsibility and liability to others for the production of Commons. All Sovereigntarian thought enforces the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity so that our people can restore responsibility and liability to others for the production of commons. Libertarianism like all abrahamic sophisms is a feminine free rider secular theology. Sovereigntarianism (european traditional law of tort) is a masculine accountable science.

  • Stop the Libertarian Lie

    Mar 23, 2020, 12:59 PM You can have a natural interest in your children. You can have a demonstrated interest in yourself, and in your children. If you claim self ownership you are confusing OWNERSHIP with NATURAL INTEREST and DEMONSTRATED INTEREST. You can have a natural interest in something. You can have a demonstrated interest in something, You can possess something, You can defend it yourself, or with other by normative means, or with a polity by institutional means. But to OWN a thing requires INSTITUTIONS that insure your control over it by the organized application of violenc. Libertarian pilpul conflates demand for, with existence of, in order to avoid starting with the first cause of sovereignty and reciprocity by the necessity of defense. You cannot magically impose fantasy on others. You must CONSTRUCT the institution of property and property rights by reciprocal defense. There are no existential ‘rights’. Only demand for them. They are created by the organized application of violence to defend them. Why would slaves not rely on the organized application of violence instead of idealisms out of ether and the threat of ostracization? Because they are powerless and poor. Why would aristocracy state the truth: property and property rights are organized application of violence? Because they are powerful and not poor. STOP THE LIBERTARIAN LIE DISAMBUGUATION?

    ignorance > opportunity > natural interest > demonstrated interest or not > possession (or not) > property (norm) or not > property rights (institutions) or not.

    All libertarian thought is lying to avoid the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity so that libertarians can escape responsibility and liability FOR OTHERS. It’s all pilpul. It’s all using platonism (ideal terms, out of thin air) without accounting for causality.

  • Stop the Libertarian Lie

    Mar 23, 2020, 12:59 PM You can have a natural interest in your children. You can have a demonstrated interest in yourself, and in your children. If you claim self ownership you are confusing OWNERSHIP with NATURAL INTEREST and DEMONSTRATED INTEREST. You can have a natural interest in something. You can have a demonstrated interest in something, You can possess something, You can defend it yourself, or with other by normative means, or with a polity by institutional means. But to OWN a thing requires INSTITUTIONS that insure your control over it by the organized application of violenc. Libertarian pilpul conflates demand for, with existence of, in order to avoid starting with the first cause of sovereignty and reciprocity by the necessity of defense. You cannot magically impose fantasy on others. You must CONSTRUCT the institution of property and property rights by reciprocal defense. There are no existential ‘rights’. Only demand for them. They are created by the organized application of violence to defend them. Why would slaves not rely on the organized application of violence instead of idealisms out of ether and the threat of ostracization? Because they are powerless and poor. Why would aristocracy state the truth: property and property rights are organized application of violence? Because they are powerful and not poor. STOP THE LIBERTARIAN LIE DISAMBUGUATION?

    ignorance > opportunity > natural interest > demonstrated interest or not > possession (or not) > property (norm) or not > property rights (institutions) or not.

    All libertarian thought is lying to avoid the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity so that libertarians can escape responsibility and liability FOR OTHERS. It’s all pilpul. It’s all using platonism (ideal terms, out of thin air) without accounting for causality.

  • DEFINITION: Own, Owning, Ownership

    DEFINITION: Own, Owning, Ownership https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/definition-own-owning-ownership/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 19:12:42 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266085003680550912

  • DEFINITION: Own, Owning, Ownership

    Mar 23, 2020, 2:01 PM OWNING The concept of ‘own’ cannot come into existence without others to compete with you for control of something, and as such as a means of enforcement by self, or others, justifying retaliation. Without others: |ACTIONS| I know of something or not > I act to bear a cost of it or not > I take physical control of it or not > i defend it or not > i engage in reciprocal defense of others or not (Property Ownership) > we construct institutions of defense or not (Rights Title). So, interest, where interest = born a cost. |INTEREST| potential interest > demonstrated interest > demonstrated possession > demonstrated defense > demonstrated reciprocal defense (property, ownership) > demonstrated institutional defense (property rights, title). You can demonstrate an potential interest, demonstrated interest, possession, independent of others. You can only demonstrate defense, property-ownership, rights-title with others. I mean. that’s a proof. In other words, that’s a set of series that fully disambiguate all dimensions, and prevents the use of sophistry (deceit) by conflation. We retroactively apply the terms rights property ownership given that we habituate the terms under our laws. But these terms are dependent on those laws and institutions – produced with others. Notice how I use “demonstrated” – meaning actions. Notice how I don’t use ‘ideals’ (Platonisms) without defining them operationally as how they came into being. You see? P uses this technique of disambiguation by operationalization, and serialization. This transforms what we call ‘logic’ into a system of measurment.

  • DEFINITION: Own, Owning, Ownership

    Mar 23, 2020, 2:01 PM OWNING The concept of ‘own’ cannot come into existence without others to compete with you for control of something, and as such as a means of enforcement by self, or others, justifying retaliation. Without others: |ACTIONS| I know of something or not > I act to bear a cost of it or not > I take physical control of it or not > i defend it or not > i engage in reciprocal defense of others or not (Property Ownership) > we construct institutions of defense or not (Rights Title). So, interest, where interest = born a cost. |INTEREST| potential interest > demonstrated interest > demonstrated possession > demonstrated defense > demonstrated reciprocal defense (property, ownership) > demonstrated institutional defense (property rights, title). You can demonstrate an potential interest, demonstrated interest, possession, independent of others. You can only demonstrate defense, property-ownership, rights-title with others. I mean. that’s a proof. In other words, that’s a set of series that fully disambiguate all dimensions, and prevents the use of sophistry (deceit) by conflation. We retroactively apply the terms rights property ownership given that we habituate the terms under our laws. But these terms are dependent on those laws and institutions – produced with others. Notice how I use “demonstrated” – meaning actions. Notice how I don’t use ‘ideals’ (Platonisms) without defining them operationally as how they came into being. You see? P uses this technique of disambiguation by operationalization, and serialization. This transforms what we call ‘logic’ into a system of measurment.