Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • ABORTION Abortion, like all violence, is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsi

    ABORTION

    Abortion, like all violence, is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad, but helpful or harmful.

    It is helpful or harmful to the individuals, or helpful or harmful to the polity, or helpful or harmful to mankind.

    In other words, abortion in the upper 20% is harmful to society and to man, and abortion in the lower 50% is beneficial to society and to man, and for everyone else it’s merely helpful or harmful to the individual.

    Likewise reproduction in the lower 50% is harmful to individuals, to society, and to man. Reproduction in the upper 20% is helpful to society and to man. And for everyone else, reproduction is merely helpful or harmful to the individual.

    Really. It’s that’s simple. That’s the answer, and there is no other answer that I know of. It’s not only simple it’s patently obvious. The only reason it’s an even vaguely interesting question is the strange cognitive bias that the question applies equally to all, rather than differently to each.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-13 15:12:00 UTC

  • Abortion

    Abortion, like all violence, is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad, but helpful or harmful. It is helpful or harmful to the individuals, or helpful or harmful to the polity, or helpful or harmful to mankind. In other words, abortion in the upper 20% is harmful to society and to man, and abortion in the lower 50% is beneficial to society and to man, and for everyone else it’s merely helpful or harmful to the individual. Likewise reproduction in the lower 50% is harmful to individuals, to society, and to man. Reproduction in the upper 20% is helpful to society and to man. And for everyone else, reproduction is merely helpful or harmful to the individual. Really. It’s that’s simple. That’s the answer, and there is no other answer that I know of. It’s not only simple it’s patently obvious. The only reason it’s an even vaguely interesting question is the strange cognitive bias that the question applies equally to all, rather than differently to each. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Abortion

    Abortion, like all violence, is neither intrinsically good nor intrinsically bad, but helpful or harmful. It is helpful or harmful to the individuals, or helpful or harmful to the polity, or helpful or harmful to mankind. In other words, abortion in the upper 20% is harmful to society and to man, and abortion in the lower 50% is beneficial to society and to man, and for everyone else it’s merely helpful or harmful to the individual. Likewise reproduction in the lower 50% is harmful to individuals, to society, and to man. Reproduction in the upper 20% is helpful to society and to man. And for everyone else, reproduction is merely helpful or harmful to the individual. Really. It’s that’s simple. That’s the answer, and there is no other answer that I know of. It’s not only simple it’s patently obvious. The only reason it’s an even vaguely interesting question is the strange cognitive bias that the question applies equally to all, rather than differently to each. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated i

    Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated interest in a rivalrous opportunity; where interest is demonstrated by the bearing of costs of homesteading (origination), Conversion(Transformation), Exchange(Reciprocity), or Forgone Opportunity; and where we warranty our own non-retaliation against restitution or retaliation by individual, group, insurer, or institution against violators of that rule – and optionally warranty insurance others by participation in restitution or retaliation against violators of that rule.

    That is the most accurate, complete, scientific definition of libertarianism that I know of, with the variation among libertarians being only the scope of interests they are willing to insure.

    Any claim otherwise, that I know of, is an act of fraud. (Theft).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-12 11:39:00 UTC

  • Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated i

    Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated interest in a rivalrous opportunity; where interest is demonstrated by the bearing of costs of homesteading (origination), Conversion(Transformation), Exchange(Reciprocity), or Forgone Opportunity; and where we warranty our own non-retaliation against restitution or retaliation by individual, group, insurer, or institution against violators of that rule – and optionally warranty insurance others by participation in restitution or retaliation against violators of that rule. That is the most accurate, complete, scientific definition of libertarianism that I know of, with the variation among libertarians being only the scope of interests they are willing to insure. Any claim otherwise, that I know of, is an act of fraud. (Theft).

  • Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated i

    Libertarianism (via negativa) = Elimination of rivalry by test of demonstrated interest in a rivalrous opportunity; where interest is demonstrated by the bearing of costs of homesteading (origination), Conversion(Transformation), Exchange(Reciprocity), or Forgone Opportunity; and where we warranty our own non-retaliation against restitution or retaliation by individual, group, insurer, or institution against violators of that rule – and optionally warranty insurance others by participation in restitution or retaliation against violators of that rule. That is the most accurate, complete, scientific definition of libertarianism that I know of, with the variation among libertarians being only the scope of interests they are willing to insure. Any claim otherwise, that I know of, is an act of fraud. (Theft).

  • THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CIVIL ORDER by Joel Davis I would define a ‘Civil Order’ a

    THE CONSTRUCTION OF A CIVIL ORDER

    by Joel Davis

    I would define a ‘Civil Order’ as the result of successfully negotiated, reciprocal social construction.

    In order to successfully negotiate a condition of interpersonal reciprocity we must have incentive to:

    1) reciprocally participate (suppression of parasitism),

    2) trust that exchange shall be honoured (insurance) and;

    3) commensurable means of reference and calculation (truthful speech and operational law).

    Mindfulness practiced correctly enables one to better conceive of the externalities of their behaviour and the actual and/or potential social rewards and punishments which accrue from these externalities.

    Thus, as Mindfulness generates greater rationality in the practitioner, it generates greater capacity to calculate reciprocity, therefore generating greater capacity to successfully negotiate reciprocity.

    (curt says: “perfection”. That is how it is done.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-11 12:19:00 UTC

  • The Construction Of A Civil Order

    by John Dow I would define a ‘Civil Order’ as the result of successfully negotiated, reciprocal social construction. In order to successfully negotiate a condition of interpersonal reciprocity we must have incentive to: 1) reciprocally participate (suppression of parasitism), 2) trust that exchange shall be honoured (insurance) and; 3) commensurable means of reference and calculation (truthful speech and operational law). Mindfulness practiced correctly enables one to better conceive of the externalities of their behaviour and the actual and/or potential social rewards and punishments which accrue from these externalities. Thus, as Mindfulness generates greater rationality in the practitioner, it generates greater capacity to calculate reciprocity, therefore generating greater capacity to successfully negotiate reciprocity. (curt says: “perfection”. That is how it is done.)

  • The Construction Of A Civil Order

    by John Dow I would define a ‘Civil Order’ as the result of successfully negotiated, reciprocal social construction. In order to successfully negotiate a condition of interpersonal reciprocity we must have incentive to: 1) reciprocally participate (suppression of parasitism), 2) trust that exchange shall be honoured (insurance) and; 3) commensurable means of reference and calculation (truthful speech and operational law). Mindfulness practiced correctly enables one to better conceive of the externalities of their behaviour and the actual and/or potential social rewards and punishments which accrue from these externalities. Thus, as Mindfulness generates greater rationality in the practitioner, it generates greater capacity to calculate reciprocity, therefore generating greater capacity to successfully negotiate reciprocity. (curt says: “perfection”. That is how it is done.)

  • AGAINST HIGGS ON ANTI MINARCHISM WHEREAS The common natural law of reciprocity,

    AGAINST HIGGS ON ANTI MINARCHISM

    WHEREAS

    The common natural law of reciprocity, adjudicated by professional judges, constitutes a market for the resolution of differences using the incremental discovery of the application of the test of reciprocity. To argue for poly-anything law is not to argue for scientific (reciprocity) law, but to argue for FALSE AND scientifically (objectively) IMMORAL LAW. (Yes, really)

    WHEREAS

    No group, under rule of law, can compete in the market for polities, which themselves constitute a market for markets, without the production of commons. The question is only the method by which commons are chosen and produced, and the method by which parasitism(privatization) of, and free riding upon those commons is prevented. While majoritarian democracy constitutes a MONOPOLY production of commons, which is unnecessary and the source of our conflicts; And while it is not clear that democracy is a good method of decision making for the production of commons; and while it s certain that representative democracy is disaster in the production of commons, it is not true – whatsoever – that direct democracy limited by rule of law, where votes are proportional(economic) or equal(shareholder), would be any less effective, than monarchical (private ownership of the commons) government. In fact, it is very hard to make the case that monarchical decision making limited by rule of law, was not and would not be superior to democratic decision making – as long as the polities were small enough (city states) such that individual discretion (decision making) on the production of commons was physically possible (by direct and empirical experience.)

    FURTHERMORE

    No group, under rule of law, under markets for commons, can defend itself from competition for territory, and monopoly definition of property rights, and

    No group, under rule of law, can resolve conflicts without a judge of last resort (monarchy or oligarchy).

    No group, under rule of law, can produce commons without a judge of last resort (monarchy or oligarchy)

    THEREFORE

    This is why libertarianism cannot exist, and never will exist, and only NOMOCRACY can, ever, exist.

    WE HAD PERFECT GOVERNMENT:

    An independent judiciary under the common, natural law of reciprocity.

    A monarchy as judge of last resort (veto)

    A House of Territories (Nobility) Limiting the fashion of the middle class.

    A House of Business Owners (House of Commons)

    The Church (A house of labor and dependents) which should have been replaced with:

    A House of Common People (non-propertied and dependent peoples)

    An Independent (private) treasury.

    A separate set of institutions for education in virtues, mindfulness, normative skills (Church) and Academy

    A separate set of institutions for education in commercial skills (Apprenticeships, Guilds, “Colleges”.)

    By this method we created “Markets In Everything”. Association, Cooperation, Reproduction, Production of goods, services, and information, Production of Commons, Production of Polities, and Production of Group Evolutionary Strategies.

    Libertarianism was a nonsense experiment in applying the eastern european borderland Ashkenazi (Polish, Ukrainian, Belarusian, Russian) diasporic ethic as a universal ethic, but it is nothing but judaism version two, just as Postmodernism is nothing but Catholicism version two. And we know how diasporic peoples do: Jews and Gypsies. They are persecuted forever as hostile minorities at both ends of the normative scale.

    Neither Christianity nor Judaism are possible without the Martial aristocracy to rule. They are nothing but cults of rebellion whereby the middle and lower classes try to avoid the necessary costs of production the market for commons.

    There is a reason northern europeans and americans were high trust people and literally NO ONE ELSE ON EARTH ever was other than perhaps the spartans.

    MAN WAS NOT OPPRESSED HE WAS DOMESTICATED LIKE EVERY OTHER ANIMAL.

    Time to grow up, kiddies. Sovereignty is had or not by the ability to enforce it by arms. But liberty is had only by permission of the sovereign. And the sovereign have no incentive to grant it other than to borderlands – and there are no borderlands left that are habitable.

    Sovereignty or slavery.

    Choose.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-09-04 12:53:00 UTC