Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • “PRIVATE PROPERY” IS A CLAIM NOT A PROOF. It’s hard to reply because private pro

    “PRIVATE PROPERY” IS A CLAIM NOT A PROOF.

    It’s hard to reply because private property is not a definition of a cause. Predation, parasitism, retaliation, and disincentive for cooperation and risk are a cause.

    So, what is the operational definition (causal chain) of private property? Define private property. They can’t. Because then they have to explain how it’s possible. “Private property” like ‘principle’ is ‘god mode speech’. A declaration. An axiomatic command. But what brings private property into existence and why did we need to invent it?

    Non aggression against what? Against private property? Well that tells us nothing if you can’t define private property, demonstrate how it comes into existence, and how it SURVIVES competition from those who don’t want private property. If you cant create a model but just claim a good, you’re just a simpleton, right? SO you can describe or command or imply an ideal but like heaven, if you can’t find a way to bring it into existence and have it survive competition, it can’t exist, right?

    What I advocate can be described as ‘market fascism’. That is, markets in everything, and natural law that both forces markets in everything, and prohibits parasitism upon anything.

    So now we can choose from preferential (positive) commons, good(positive) commons and necessary(negative) commons like defense.

    So while you certainly cannot be compelled to pay for preferential commons (luxuries), you might have to pay for commons which you indirectly benefit from, and you must pay for commons that are necessary for your private property to exist.

    There are no borderlands. There is no crusoe’s island. There are no ‘ghettos’ that are not paid for by even MORE expensive commons. So how will you obtain and hold territory of sufficient productive value that others will not take it from you either because you are weak, or because, given your weakness, you house parasites and pirates an those who live off markets with expensive commons but do not pay for them?

    Principles are for children. Create a model so that you can’t use weasel words, ideals, and half truths that can’t survive competition.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 09:10:00 UTC

  • “Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.”— Eric Ra

    –“Self ownership cannot exist because ownership requires reciprocity.”— Eric Rautenstrauch

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 13:03:00 UTC

  • USE “SOVEREIGNTY AND NATURAL LAW” NOT “LIBERTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW” I have to

    USE “SOVEREIGNTY AND NATURAL LAW” NOT “LIBERTARIANISM AND RULE OF LAW”

    I have to ‘correct’ Ricardo if he is using ‘libertarianism’ rather than ‘sovereignty’ out of convenience. Because just like ‘Austrian Economics’ (Mengerianism) has been ruined, the term ‘Liberty’ and “Libertarianism” has been appropriated and ruined.

    Mises was justly criticized and dismissed for his ‘Jewish Economics’. I’ve done the same for Rothbard and his “Jewish Libertinism’.

    The term liberty originated with the right to preserve local custom over sovereign law. It was a ‘permission’.

    Liberty says nothing about the CONTENT of that law.

    Sovereignty leaves no CHOICE over the content of law.

    ONLY Natural Law can survive the tests of sovereignty.

    Propertarianism = Sovereignty = Rule by Militia, by Rule of Law by Natural Law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 12:56:00 UTC

  • SELF OWNERSHIP IS A NONSENSE STATEMENT Self-ownership is a nonsense statement. Y

    SELF OWNERSHIP IS A NONSENSE STATEMENT

    Self-ownership is a nonsense statement. You can control your mind and body but you cannot OWN it without someone else to insure it such a thing. You might claim you can possess it one on one against a similar or weaker opponent. But you can’t own it without an insurer. And even then you can only own it to the degree made possible by the insurer(s). Ownership can only exist in relation to others. So we might deflate the ‘deception’ of self ownership into “I demand defense of my mind, body, actions, and the products of all three for my reciprocal defense of mind body actions and products of all all three.”

    (Yet another empty verbalism by the art of Pilpul.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 11:46:00 UTC

  • What do you consider the limit of what you own? Because it isn’t what we ‘agree’

    What do you consider the limit of what you own? Because it isn’t what we ‘agree’ upon that matters, it’s what we disagree upon. And libertarians only ‘agree’ to borderland and pastoralist property, while sovereigntists extend it to anything one has born a cost to obtain an interest.

    In other words, if I am paying for things you benefit from indirectly that isn’t your choice if you make use of them.

    This is the origin of all conflict – not property. Investments.

    And our investments are reducible to our time.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-12 11:15:00 UTC

  • by Bill Joslin Sovereignty ensures Autonomy – in that autonomy I’m defining as a

    by Bill Joslin

    Sovereignty ensures Autonomy – in that autonomy I’m defining as agency free of imposition from another agent – whereby property en toto provides commensurability of measurement and autonomy provides decidability in commons creations and constraints on rule via negativa – restrict commons and rule from anything which inhibits development of agency in the polis – measured by our best empirical methods.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 17:57:00 UTC

  • The NAP is a half truth because it is an incomplete sentence. If you fully expan

    The NAP is a half truth because it is an incomplete sentence. If you fully expand the sentence you will falsify NAP.

    “the method of decidability by which we avoid conflict and insure cooperation is to restrict our actions to those that do not aggress against…. (what)?”

    You see. the reason libertarians disagree is because they can’t define ‘what’. So they use ‘Principle’ as a means of avoiding answering the question. Why? Because if you answer the question of ‘what’ you find that you end up with classical liberalism not with libertarianism or anarchism. Why? BEcause otherwise it is impossible to form, hold, and preserve a polity in competition with other polities.

    Try it. You can’t do it. I know more about the libertarian fallacy than anyone living. And the way to test (praxeological test) the NAP or libertarian ideology is to ask the sequence of steps necessary for the formation, holding, and persistence from competition of such a polity.

    In other words, *create a model*. And the reason people don’t do that, and the reason there are not ‘advanced literatures’ on libertarianism, is because it’s not possible. Period. End of story.

    There are no conditions under which the formation of an anarchic polity is possible. The best one can do is rule of law by natural law and severely limit mandatory investment in the commons to that which we call a minimal state. Even then, open immigration and the NAP fail – the litmus test is blackmail. And that’s even before we get to trade policy and immigration, and financialization, and the problem of free riding on the commons of competing polities, and the fact that such libertarian polities always attract such malcontents that they drive out the good, and draw the ire of ‘traditional’ polities.

    I put a stake in rothbard’s heart but that vampire of nonsense that foolish young men seem so attracted to, always seems to find an artery-of-idiocy to bite into.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-10 13:32:00 UTC

  • WHERE ARE ANY INNOCENTS? by Al Freeman Who, in our current world, is not initiat

    WHERE ARE ANY INNOCENTS?

    by Al Freeman

    Who, in our current world, is not initiating violence against you?

    Our society currently thinks(and this includes those who follow the NAP) that violence should only be used against physical violence. We ignore social, political, and monetary violence.

    Violence has been redefined. (CURT: we have shifted violence from laborers (slaves), to physical property, to ‘material interests’ to social capital, political capital, civilizational capital, and genetic capital.)

    Not long ago, and for most of human history, voting for, or supporting Bernie Sanders would have been considered violence. Voting for a man who openly advocates stealing from others is an act of violence.

    Voting for and supporting a removal of guns from civilians is an act of violence.

    So, by advocating violence, am I supporting violence against innocents that are peaceful?

    No. But where do you find such people in our society? Where are the innocents?

    Taking money to redistribute it is theft, taking away guns is stealing, and destroys your ability to defend yourself.

    These things are acts of violence.

    Anyone who uses money, takes actions, or casts a vote to support these things is committing an act of violence.

    Violence against which we can justifiably retaliate.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-09 12:16:00 UTC

  • 5) Ergo the problem of the production of commons under the preservation of liber

    5) Ergo the problem of the production of commons under the preservation of liberty can be solved.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 10:12:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882904959364341760

    Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664

  • 2) The discourse on liberty is byproduct of religion (belief), whereas all exist

    2) The discourse on liberty is byproduct of religion (belief), whereas all existential liberty is byproduct of rule of natural common law.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-06 10:07:02 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882903710912962560

    Reply addressees: @AnarchyEnsues @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/882819237009649664