Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and

    I justify markets in everything. Markets in everything requires natural law, and natural law requires aristocracy.

    Aristocracy like violence is neither good nor bad. It is the ends that aristocracy and violence are put to that determine good or bad. As such, advocacy of markets (reciprocity/cooperation/non-aggression) merely requires aristocracy as a cost (Input).

    I remain a ‘libertarian’ in the sense that I desire liberty and freedom even if I can only obtain it through purchasing sovereignty with the promise of violence.

    But it is a condition of sovereignty for the aristocracy, liberty for the upper, freedom for the middle and working, and subsidy for the dependent classes that I am seeking to justify. And I can find no other political argument that survives tests of scale (time).

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 16:27:00 UTC

  • Rights: The Outcome of a Market Exchange

    NICELY STATED —“So, I am thinking of rights not as a naturally-occurring phenomenon that the Rothbardians assert it to be, but the end result of a market exchange between those demanding privileges and those able to supply the defense of those privileges. That is why rights are not absolute (you cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater, cannot use speech to engage in a criminal conspiracy, cannot own certain classes of weapons, etc.) and it is the meeting of the demand for privileges by the citizenry and the supply of defense by the sovereign (with both sides negotiating for their interests and settling on a compromise) that is the actual right. The right is the outcome of this market exchange.”— A Friend

  • Rights: The Outcome of a Market Exchange

    NICELY STATED —“So, I am thinking of rights not as a naturally-occurring phenomenon that the Rothbardians assert it to be, but the end result of a market exchange between those demanding privileges and those able to supply the defense of those privileges. That is why rights are not absolute (you cannot yell “fire” in a movie theater, cannot use speech to engage in a criminal conspiracy, cannot own certain classes of weapons, etc.) and it is the meeting of the demand for privileges by the citizenry and the supply of defense by the sovereign (with both sides negotiating for their interests and settling on a compromise) that is the actual right. The right is the outcome of this market exchange.”— A Friend

  • The Demands of Sovereignty

    THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS, THE COMMONS AND MERE LIBERTY ***’One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.***

  • The Demands of Sovereignty

    THE NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGNS, THE COMMONS AND MERE LIBERTY ***’One who possesses sovereignty in fact by perfect reciprocity CANNOT fail to police the commons without violating the contract for perfect reciprocity. This is what separates the SOVEREIGN IN FACT from those who experience LIBERTY BY PERMISSION of sovereigns.***

  • Aristocracy: We Ask Cooperation of those with Agency, or its Promise

    We don’t ask cooperation of beasts We don’t ask cooperation of domesticated animals. We don’t ask cooperation of pets We don’t ask cooperation of children We don’t ask cooperation of the incapable We don’t ask cooperation of those without agency. We ask little cooperation of those who request subsidy. We ask more cooperation of those who request freedom. We ask even more cooperation from those who request liberty. We desire the full cooperation of those who possess agency. We require and cannot avoid the full cooperation of those who desire sovereignty. The few rule the many, to transcend mankind. We can rule and transcend, or be ruled and fail to. We can possess sovereignty in fact, or something less by permission. But to possess sovereignty requires we possess agency. And to possess agency we must possess the ability, the knowledge, the fitness and will… … the will to fight, kill, slaughter, and destroy. There is no transcendence, no sovereignty, no agency for the weak, the cowardly, the timid, or the dim. And no liberty, nor freedom, nor subsidy for others if we fail.

  • Aristocracy: We Ask Cooperation of those with Agency, or its Promise

    We don’t ask cooperation of beasts We don’t ask cooperation of domesticated animals. We don’t ask cooperation of pets We don’t ask cooperation of children We don’t ask cooperation of the incapable We don’t ask cooperation of those without agency. We ask little cooperation of those who request subsidy. We ask more cooperation of those who request freedom. We ask even more cooperation from those who request liberty. We desire the full cooperation of those who possess agency. We require and cannot avoid the full cooperation of those who desire sovereignty. The few rule the many, to transcend mankind. We can rule and transcend, or be ruled and fail to. We can possess sovereignty in fact, or something less by permission. But to possess sovereignty requires we possess agency. And to possess agency we must possess the ability, the knowledge, the fitness and will… … the will to fight, kill, slaughter, and destroy. There is no transcendence, no sovereignty, no agency for the weak, the cowardly, the timid, or the dim. And no liberty, nor freedom, nor subsidy for others if we fail.

  • NATURAL LAW DOESN’T JUSTIFY ARISTOCRACY – IT JUSTIFIES MARKETS – IT IS JUST THAT

    NATURAL LAW DOESN’T JUSTIFY ARISTOCRACY – IT JUSTIFIES MARKETS – IT IS JUST THAT NATURAL LAW IS ONLY POSSIBLE UNDER ARISTOCRACY

    btw: (important)

    I advocate natural law because it forces reciprocity, and by reciprocity forces markets in everything. The only thing the underclasses have to trade is self control, and particularly reproductive self control. The outcome of that self control turns out to be eugenic – which is a benefit by externality.

    The reason I advocate aristocracy, is because the only thing the strong have to trade is violence, and the only use that violence can be put to under reciprocity is the construction of reciprocity (natural law), markets, and the externality of eugenic transcendence. And because in history, if they do not profit from rule by their violence, they will be consumed parasitically by those who profit from deceit(left), or commerce (middle), I merely state this eugenic transcendence aesthetically to answer my critics that I fail to provide an aesthetic to the aristocratic(father), and only provide the aesthetic to the bourgeoise (brother). the left (mother) lacks agency so their approval is only something to explain and judge, not ask since their aesthetic is not one of reciprocity but parasitism.

    As a criticism of those who follow me as far as I know, only Eli, Butch, and TRS’s Mike Enoch were able to understand this without explanation. Why? you and I evolved and have been trained, to think in ideal types and on dimension of difference, not in equilibria producing desirable outcomes by externality of following incentives rather simple one or two dimensional rules. We evolved at human scale, but must now answer questions of large numbers beyond human scale.

    Can you evolve to think in equilibrial, external, mutli-causal density? Of course you can. There are only so many dimensions of causes that affect our judgements. And I cannot tell if this is an physical (iq) limitation, a normative limitation(habit), or pedagogical (learning) question, but since I can do it, others must be able to. And I can observe from my own learning and Eli’s that it is not intuitive – like economics it is precisely counter-intuitive, and must become intuitive -like reading , math, and economics – to make use of it. )

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    (h/t: Bill Joslin for indirectly telling me I had to state this.) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-17 13:19:00 UTC

  • We don’t ask cooperation of beasts We don’t ask cooperation of domesticated anim

    We don’t ask cooperation of beasts

    We don’t ask cooperation of domesticated animals.

    We don’t ask cooperation of pets

    We don’t ask cooperation of children

    We don’t ask cooperation of the incapable

    We don’t ask cooperation of those without agency.

    We ask little cooperation of those who request subsidy.

    We ask more cooperation of those who request freedom.

    We ask even more cooperation from those who request liberty.

    We desire the full cooperation of those who possess agency.

    We require and cannot avoid the full cooperation of those who desire sovereignty.

    The few rule the many, to transcend mankind.

    We can rule and transcend, or be ruled and fail to.

    We can possess sovereignty in fact, or something less by permission.

    But to possess sovereignty requires we possess agency.

    And to possess agency we must possess the ability, the knowledge, the fitness and will…

    … the will to fight, kill, slaughter, and destroy.

    There is no transcendence, no sovereignty, no agency for the weak, the cowardly, the timid, or the dim. And no liberty, nor freedom, nor subsidy for others if we fail.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 15:26:00 UTC

  • WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A GOD? The, first, shocking Question of teaching natural

    WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE A GOD?

    The, first, shocking Question of teaching natural law (propertarianism).

    To possess perfect agency, and perfect sovereignty?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-16 15:13:00 UTC