Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548260937 Timestamp) “PROPERTARIANISM” –> “CRITICAL NATURALISM”? —-“Would you consider renaming Propertarianism to “Critical Naturalism”?”— Kash That’s Very Smart. I Never thought of that. Hmm…. That would change it from a legal category of name to a philosophical category of name. Hmm… Well it’s true right? In philosophical terms it would be categorized as “critical naturalism”. Although, what is the difference between the law and critical naturalism? I ‘m not sure there is any. So why are critical naturalism and the law of tort not identical? I mean, that’s my underlying argument: that the west differs from the rest because across the ages of political-philosophical-religious propaganda, the law of “sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty” remained constant. So I would call the Law a discipline that relies on critical naturalism. I would call propertarianism the natural law that relies on critical naturalism. So yes. I think the brand name has stuck, but yes I’d (a) accept that as a truthful description of the philosophical category (b) use the term myself as a philosophical category, (c) maintain the position that the law is the only complete and parsimonious category, and that the attempt to produce science is a long term attempt to unify western law (our civilizational cult) with western philosophy (middle class propaganda).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548260937 Timestamp) “PROPERTARIANISM” –> “CRITICAL NATURALISM”? —-“Would you consider renaming Propertarianism to “Critical Naturalism”?”— Kash That’s Very Smart. I Never thought of that. Hmm…. That would change it from a legal category of name to a philosophical category of name. Hmm… Well it’s true right? In philosophical terms it would be categorized as “critical naturalism”. Although, what is the difference between the law and critical naturalism? I ‘m not sure there is any. So why are critical naturalism and the law of tort not identical? I mean, that’s my underlying argument: that the west differs from the rest because across the ages of political-philosophical-religious propaganda, the law of “sovereignty, reciprocity, truth, and duty” remained constant. So I would call the Law a discipline that relies on critical naturalism. I would call propertarianism the natural law that relies on critical naturalism. So yes. I think the brand name has stuck, but yes I’d (a) accept that as a truthful description of the philosophical category (b) use the term myself as a philosophical category, (c) maintain the position that the law is the only complete and parsimonious category, and that the attempt to produce science is a long term attempt to unify western law (our civilizational cult) with western philosophy (middle class propaganda).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548342580 Timestamp) PROPERTARIAN PARSIMONY GIVEN THE FOLLOWING Whereas life defends investment of

    1. Time,
    2. Effort,
    3. Resources,
    4. Forgone opportunity

    Where defended investments consist of:

    1. Self-Property – Body, Time, Actions, Memory, Concepts, Status, etc.
    2. Personal Property – Houses, Cars, “Things”, etc.
    3. Kinship Property – Mates, Children, Family, Friends, etc.
    4. Cooperative Property – Organizational and Knowledge ties.
    5. Shareholder Property – Recorded and Quantified shares. Citizenship.
    6. Common Property – Territorial and capital interests, Artificial Property.
    7. Informal Institutional Property – Manners, Ethics, Morals, Myths, Rituals.
    8. Formal Institutional Property – Religion, Government, Laws.

    Where reciprocity consists of:

    1. Productive
    2. Fully informed
    3. Warrantied
    4. Voluntary transfer
    5. Free negative externality.

    Where ir-reciprocity in action consists of: Action: 1. Murder 2. Harm

    3. Theft

    1. Fraud (in all forms)
    2. Free Riding (in all forms: Socialization of losses, Privatization of commons)
    3. Blackmail
    4. Rent Seeking.

    9. Conspiracy

    1. Propagandizing (Poisoning the well)

    11. Conversion (Poisoning the well)

    1. Immigration,
    2. Conquest
    3. Genocide

    And where ir-reciprocity in speech consists in: Speech 1. Intent to lie. 2. Intent to deceive. 3. Failure of due diligence against lying 4. Carrier of lies. 5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies. 6. A genetic predisposition to lie. And Where truthful speech consists of:

    1. categorically consistent (identity)
    2. internally consistent (logic)
    3. externally correspondent (empirical)
    4. operationally consistent (existentially possible)
    5. rationally consistent (rational choice)
    6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice)
    7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete)
    8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent)
      And where:

    And where both Actions and Speech are limited by:

    1. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible.
    2. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution.
    3. The function of the state is largely to serve as insurer of last resort against actions for which restitution is impossible, improbable, or beyond the means of the community to organize.

    And Where the function of the state is: And Where the function of the law is:

    1. The function of common natural law is to resolve differences.
    2. The function of legislation is to provide contracts for production of commons.
    3. The function of regulation is to administer operationalization of legislation, and the common law.

    And Where the difficulty in the present:

    1. No means of testing the legislation prior to its enactment.
    2. No means of returning legislation to the legislature.
    3. No means of approving regulation as expansion of legislation.
    4. No means of structurally limiting law, legislation, and regulation, to strict construction from reciprocity and therefore tests of computability (operational possibility).

    In other words, there are limits to what private insurers can do, and the case study is germany, which makes most use of insurance of any people. Cheers.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548302621 Timestamp) “WE SHARPEN EACH OTHER’S MINDS BY DULLING EACH OTHER’S SWORDS.”

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548300459 Timestamp) ROTHBARD’S GHETTO ETHICS VS WESTERN SOVEREIGN ETHICS Rothbardian (jewish) traditional ethics require only voluntary exchange. Under Jewish ethics, usury, baiting into moral hazard, verbal fraud, blackmail, bribery, rent seeking, corruption are ethical because they are voluntary. Volition is the only test. The ethics of “What can i get away with?” The low trust ethics of the middle east. Under western (germanic) traditional ethics all of these are unethical, because they violate reciprocity – which aside from volition, requires warrantied due diligence that a transfer is also productive, fully informed, and free of negative externality. The ethics of “i have gotten away with nothing.” The high trust ethics of northern europeans. So when you dont understand something ask for clarification. Dont shame me for not writing in crayon. And do one better, and assume you’re abysmally ignorant before you assume I err. Cheers.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548342580 Timestamp) PROPERTARIAN PARSIMONY GIVEN THE FOLLOWING Whereas life defends investment of

    1. Time,
    2. Effort,
    3. Resources,
    4. Forgone opportunity

    Where defended investments consist of:

    1. Self-Property – Body, Time, Actions, Memory, Concepts, Status, etc.
    2. Personal Property – Houses, Cars, “Things”, etc.
    3. Kinship Property – Mates, Children, Family, Friends, etc.
    4. Cooperative Property – Organizational and Knowledge ties.
    5. Shareholder Property – Recorded and Quantified shares. Citizenship.
    6. Common Property – Territorial and capital interests, Artificial Property.
    7. Informal Institutional Property – Manners, Ethics, Morals, Myths, Rituals.
    8. Formal Institutional Property – Religion, Government, Laws.

    Where reciprocity consists of:

    1. Productive
    2. Fully informed
    3. Warrantied
    4. Voluntary transfer
    5. Free negative externality.

    Where ir-reciprocity in action consists of: Action: 1. Murder 2. Harm

    3. Theft

    1. Fraud (in all forms)
    2. Free Riding (in all forms: Socialization of losses, Privatization of commons)
    3. Blackmail
    4. Rent Seeking.

    9. Conspiracy

    1. Propagandizing (Poisoning the well)

    11. Conversion (Poisoning the well)

    1. Immigration,
    2. Conquest
    3. Genocide

    And where ir-reciprocity in speech consists in: Speech 1. Intent to lie. 2. Intent to deceive. 3. Failure of due diligence against lying 4. Carrier of lies. 5. Carrier of tradition and culture of lies. 6. A genetic predisposition to lie. And Where truthful speech consists of:

    1. categorically consistent (identity)
    2. internally consistent (logic)
    3. externally correspondent (empirical)
    4. operationally consistent (existentially possible)
    5. rationally consistent (rational choice)
    6. reciprocally consistent (reciprocal rational choice)
    7. consistent within scope, limits, and fully accounting (complete)
    8. consistent across all those seven dimensions (coherent)
      And where:

    And where both Actions and Speech are limited by:

    1. limited to actions for which restitution(restoration) is possible.
    2. warrantied by sufficient resources to perform restitution.
    3. The function of the state is largely to serve as insurer of last resort against actions for which restitution is impossible, improbable, or beyond the means of the community to organize.

    And Where the function of the state is: And Where the function of the law is:

    1. The function of common natural law is to resolve differences.
    2. The function of legislation is to provide contracts for production of commons.
    3. The function of regulation is to administer operationalization of legislation, and the common law.

    And Where the difficulty in the present:

    1. No means of testing the legislation prior to its enactment.
    2. No means of returning legislation to the legislature.
    3. No means of approving regulation as expansion of legislation.
    4. No means of structurally limiting law, legislation, and regulation, to strict construction from reciprocity and therefore tests of computability (operational possibility).

    In other words, there are limits to what private insurers can do, and the case study is germany, which makes most use of insurance of any people. Cheers.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548277311 Timestamp) PROPERTARIANISM’S INTELLECTUAL CONTEXT BY KASH VIKAAS. —“Propertarianism and its proxy testimonialism is the operational theory of critical naturalism (praxis). Naturalism was the dominant theory of modern idealism before postmodernism before grammatology (Derrida) appeared on the scene.”— Well, you know, in the context of grammatology, I also produced the table of the grammars which is sort of the Periodic Table of Speech. My view of Derrida and grammatology is that they’re just updating pilpul (sophism), for the same reason the rabbis invented pilpul (sophism) and the same reason plato invented idealism (sophism). So social construction from the postmoderns, and the prohibition of social construction (sophism) from propertarianism (critical naturalism).

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548302621 Timestamp) “WE SHARPEN EACH OTHER’S MINDS BY DULLING EACH OTHER’S SWORDS.”

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548300459 Timestamp) ROTHBARD’S GHETTO ETHICS VS WESTERN SOVEREIGN ETHICS Rothbardian (jewish) traditional ethics require only voluntary exchange. Under Jewish ethics, usury, baiting into moral hazard, verbal fraud, blackmail, bribery, rent seeking, corruption are ethical because they are voluntary. Volition is the only test. The ethics of “What can i get away with?” The low trust ethics of the middle east. Under western (germanic) traditional ethics all of these are unethical, because they violate reciprocity – which aside from volition, requires warrantied due diligence that a transfer is also productive, fully informed, and free of negative externality. The ethics of “i have gotten away with nothing.” The high trust ethics of northern europeans. So when you dont understand something ask for clarification. Dont shame me for not writing in crayon. And do one better, and assume you’re abysmally ignorant before you assume I err. Cheers.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548727613 Timestamp) The White Law: The White Pill.