Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • Agency: Violence, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, Transcendence

    Agency: Violence, Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Markets, Transcendence

  • “Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.” Bill Josli

    –“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.” Bill Joslin: What about possession? Context: In fact : Possession – what you can defend is yours Agreement : Property- what others agree is yours is yours Legal : 3rd party ensurance of ownership agreement In fact : (de facto) soverienty – hold monopoly of violence over a domain Agreement (De jur): recognition of soverienty by other soveriegns (example Israel) Legal – (and currently non-existent) 3rd party ensurance of agreement of soverienty (no world power to enforce) The notion of possessing the volition of another can not exist ‘in fact’ only in agreement. (a slave agrees to be a slave when given this choice: “be a slave or die”) In other words ownership of a human can not be demonstrated ‘in fact’, only in agreement and in law. The simple act of raising one’s arm or scratching one’s ass demonstrates possession of volition which, in fact, can only be the person doing the scratching. The only type of human ownership which remains coherent across all three domains (physical – in fact, social-agreement, legal-3rd party ensurance) is self ownership were by we agree to self ownership (ownership coheres to possession) and the law ensures it. Any other form of human ownership can only cohere to 2 of the 3 (agreement and law) To clarify further. Human volition remains bound by biology and thus can not be transferred, in fact, to another. One human’s volition bent to the will of another can only occur via agreement between the slave and master. The slave always retains possession and control. So the quote follows the same structure as libertarian arguments which rally for liberty while ignoring the physical necessity of soverienty for liberty’s existence. Liberty can only exist in agreement with the soveriegn and law by the soveriegn. Human ownership can only exist in agreement with the slave bolstered by the law of the masters. Just as libertarians seek liberty while avoiding the costs of soverienty, this argument seeks slavery without the requirement of reciprocity (slave’s agreement). I can only think of one reason to promote the idea – the wish to justify coercion

  • “Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.” Bill Josli

    –“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.” Bill Joslin: What about possession? Context: In fact : Possession – what you can defend is yours Agreement : Property- what others agree is yours is yours Legal : 3rd party ensurance of ownership agreement In fact : (de facto) soverienty – hold monopoly of violence over a domain Agreement (De jur): recognition of soverienty by other soveriegns (example Israel) Legal – (and currently non-existent) 3rd party ensurance of agreement of soverienty (no world power to enforce) The notion of possessing the volition of another can not exist ‘in fact’ only in agreement. (a slave agrees to be a slave when given this choice: “be a slave or die”) In other words ownership of a human can not be demonstrated ‘in fact’, only in agreement and in law. The simple act of raising one’s arm or scratching one’s ass demonstrates possession of volition which, in fact, can only be the person doing the scratching. The only type of human ownership which remains coherent across all three domains (physical – in fact, social-agreement, legal-3rd party ensurance) is self ownership were by we agree to self ownership (ownership coheres to possession) and the law ensures it. Any other form of human ownership can only cohere to 2 of the 3 (agreement and law) To clarify further. Human volition remains bound by biology and thus can not be transferred, in fact, to another. One human’s volition bent to the will of another can only occur via agreement between the slave and master. The slave always retains possession and control. So the quote follows the same structure as libertarian arguments which rally for liberty while ignoring the physical necessity of soverienty for liberty’s existence. Liberty can only exist in agreement with the soveriegn and law by the soveriegn. Human ownership can only exist in agreement with the slave bolstered by the law of the masters. Just as libertarians seek liberty while avoiding the costs of soverienty, this argument seeks slavery without the requirement of reciprocity (slave’s agreement). I can only think of one reason to promote the idea – the wish to justify coercion

  • “Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.” Bill Josli

    –“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.”

    Bill Joslin:

    What about possession?

    Context:

    In fact : Possession – what you can defend is yours

    Agreement : Property- what others agree is yours is yours

    Legal : 3rd party ensurance of ownership agreement

    In fact : (de facto) soverienty – hold monopoly of violence over a domain

    Agreement (De jur): recognition of soverienty by other soveriegns (example Israel)

    Legal – (and currently non-existent) 3rd party ensurance of agreement of soverienty (no world power to enforce)

    The notion of possessing the volition of another can not exist ‘in fact’ only in agreement. (a slave agrees to be a slave when given this choice: “be a slave or die”)

    In other words ownership of a human can not be demonstrated ‘in fact’, only in agreement and in law.

    The simple act of raising one’s arm or scratching one’s ass demonstrates possession of volition which, in fact, can only be the person doing the scratching.

    The only type of human ownership which remains coherent across all three domains (physical – in fact, social-agreement, legal-3rd party ensurance) is self ownership were by we agree to self ownership (ownership coheres to possession) and the law ensures it. Any other form of human ownership can only cohere to 2 of the 3 (agreement and law)

    To clarify further.

    Human volition remains bound by biology and thus can not be transferred, in fact, to another. One human’s volition bent to the will of another can only occur via agreement between the slave and master. The slave always retains possession and control.

    So the quote follows the same structure as libertarian arguments which rally for liberty while ignoring the physical necessity of soverienty for liberty’s existence.

    Liberty can only exist in agreement with the soveriegn and law by the soveriegn.

    Human ownership can only exist in agreement with the slave bolstered by the law of the masters.

    Just as libertarians seek liberty while avoiding the costs of soverienty, this argument seeks slavery without the requirement of reciprocity (slave’s agreement).

    I can only think of one reason to promote the idea – the wish to justify coercion

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-22 23:15:00 UTC

  • Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valua

    Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valuable until it is not valuable personally, familially, tribally, or nationally, or not valuable organizationally or politically. Cooperation is not an intrinsic good any more than violence is an intrinsic bad. They are just useful or not in producing goods and bands. When cooperation is no longer beneficial, then boycott is in one’s interest. When boycott is no longer beneficial then predation is in one’s interest. And while it is very common that cooperation and boycott are often more valuable, there are many conditions under which violence is preferable to boycott or cooperation. This is the left’s mistake. This is the state’s mistake. This is most everyone’s mistake. Never has an empire been so fragile. Revolutions are always suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect. The question is – can I deprive those with the interest in change of confidence in all alternatives such that they will work in very small groups to bring about constitutional, political, and civil change? I think so. Desperation will sink in. When desperate, and with vision of the future, and a plan of action, it’s all possible. Trivial even. Deterministic.

  • Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valua

    Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valuable until it is not valuable personally, familially, tribally, or nationally, or not valuable organizationally or politically.

    Cooperation is not an intrinsic good any more than violence is an intrinsic bad. They are just useful or not in producing goods and bands.

    When cooperation is no longer beneficial, then boycott is in one’s interest. When boycott is no longer beneficial then predation is in one’s interest. And while it is very common that cooperation and boycott are often more valuable, there are many conditions under which violence is preferable to boycott or cooperation.

    This is the left’s mistake. This is the state’s mistake. This is most everyone’s mistake.

    Never has an empire been so fragile.

    Revolutions are always suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect.

    The question is – can I deprive those with the interest in change of confidence in all alternatives such that they will work in very small groups to bring about constitutional, political, and civil change?

    I think so. Desperation will sink in. When desperate, and with vision of the future, and a plan of action, it’s all possible.

    Trivial even.

    Deterministic.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-15 11:38:00 UTC

  • Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valua

    Cooperation, whether personal, commercial, political, or military, is only valuable until it is not valuable personally, familially, tribally, or nationally, or not valuable organizationally or politically. Cooperation is not an intrinsic good any more than violence is an intrinsic bad. They are just useful or not in producing goods and bands. When cooperation is no longer beneficial, then boycott is in one’s interest. When boycott is no longer beneficial then predation is in one’s interest. And while it is very common that cooperation and boycott are often more valuable, there are many conditions under which violence is preferable to boycott or cooperation. This is the left’s mistake. This is the state’s mistake. This is most everyone’s mistake. Never has an empire been so fragile. Revolutions are always suspect in prospect but deterministic in retrospect. The question is – can I deprive those with the interest in change of confidence in all alternatives such that they will work in very small groups to bring about constitutional, political, and civil change? I think so. Desperation will sink in. When desperate, and with vision of the future, and a plan of action, it’s all possible. Trivial even. Deterministic.

  • by Eli Harman You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding

    by Eli Harman You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding by the rules. Optionally: by helping to enforce the rules. I don’t think this last part is optional, although your help can be indirect (pay your taxes) rather than direct (militia service.) Libertarians who say the rules just are, whether god-given, inalienable, natural, morally imperative, self-evident, or what have you, are just lying in order to try and obtain their protection at a discount.

  • by Eli Harman You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding

    by Eli Harman

    You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding by the rules. Optionally: by helping to enforce the rules. I don’t think this last part is optional, although your help can be indirect (pay your taxes) rather than direct (militia service.)

    Libertarians who say the rules just are, whether god-given, inalienable, natural, morally imperative, self-evident, or what have you, are just lying in order to try and obtain their protection at a discount.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 19:38:00 UTC

  • by Eli Harman You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding

    by Eli Harman You earn the protection of the rules by submitting to and abiding by the rules. Optionally: by helping to enforce the rules. I don’t think this last part is optional, although your help can be indirect (pay your taxes) rather than direct (militia service.) Libertarians who say the rules just are, whether god-given, inalienable, natural, morally imperative, self-evident, or what have you, are just lying in order to try and obtain their protection at a discount.