Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • WHICH STATEMENT DO YOU IDENTIFY MOST WITH? 1) “I agree not to subjugate you, pre

    WHICH STATEMENT DO YOU IDENTIFY MOST WITH?

    1) “I agree not to subjugate you, prey upon you, kill you, if our cooperation is more beneficial than your defeat.”

    (male-aristocracy-conservative: “Father”)

    2) “I agree to cooperate and invest in common goods as long as it’s not against the interests of me, my family, kin, and people. Otherwise I choose not to cooperate, and i am happy to defend myself, my family, my kin, and my people.”

    (male-burgher-libertarian : “Brother”)

    3) “I agree to cooperate with the group as long as I am not left behind and obtain a share of production, but I will inhibit cooperation if I am left behind or denied a share of production.”

    (female – socialist: “Mother-Daughter”)

    4) “I want to be left alone, but allowed to participate in the commercial market.”

    (male – Libertine – anarchist )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 12:04:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: A DESCRIPTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, ETHICS (important piece) —“Propert

    PROPERTARIANISM: A DESCRIPTIVE, SCIENTIFIC, ETHICS

    (important piece)

    —“Propertarianism is a descriptive framework. A Propertarian would be someone who uses that descriptive framework, and then most of us who are Propertarians are also aristocratic republicans or monarchists (our particular political advocacy).”— Josh Jeppson

    Yes, and I think this gets lost. (As usual it’s my fault.) I conflate the methodology with explanation with the preference.

    1) REFORMATION OF SCIENCE:

    What we call “Propertarianism”, or the combination of Testimonialism (epistemology), Acquisitionism(psychology), Propertarianism (ethics / sociology [cooperation]), and Propertarian Group Evolutionary Strategy(group competition – which still needs a name), creates an internally consistent language and methodology for the truthful, value-free description, comparison, and judgement of human action (and speech).

    As far as I know this framework completes the scientific method, and replaces philosophy, psychology, social science, and reforms law, political science, and economics. I call this framework “The Law of Nature”, which includes “Natural Law (cooperation and competition)” and “Testimonial Law (law of information)” as extensions of Laws of Nature (physical laws).

    The Law of Nature “Correcting Aristotle on Categories of Philosophy”

    …. 1 – Physical Laws (Transformation) – THE NECESSARY

    …. …. Physics: Astronomy, Chemistry, Biology, Sentience, Engineering, Mathematics

    …. 2 – Law of Man (properties of man) (Action) – THE POSSIBLE

    …. Acquisition, perception, memory, psychology, sociology

    …. 3 – Natural Law – Cooperation – THE GOOD

    …. Ethics, morality, law, economics

    …. 4 – Law of Testimony – THE TRUE

    …. Testimony, epistemology, grammar, logics, rhetoric

    …. 5 – Law of Aesthetics – THE BEAUTIFUL

    …. Sense, beauty, design, craft, content. manners. Fitness

    2) EXPLANATION OF WESTERN EXCELLENCE:

    The combination of Transcendence, Heroism, Sovereignty, Aristocracy, and the institutional necessity of Markets in Everything as a consequence; Aryan Expansionism (attempt to obtain the status of the gods), and the consequential evolution of non-conflation / deconflation / deflationary truth, reason, rationalism, science; independent judiciary and empirical law; testimony, jury, and senate; property, contract, and competition; the domestication of man from animal, to slave, to serf, to freeman, to sovereign; and the estates of the realm: labor(neutral), burgher(organization/”remuneration”), priesthood(education/’gossip’), aristocracy (rule/force) – all explain the rapid rise of western civilization in the ancient and modern worlds as producing *faster* experimental and therefore adaptive velocity in all aspects of human existence. In other words, it explains the rise of the west in the ancient and modern worlds, and the weakness of the west in the medieval (christian) interim.

    3) EXPLANATION OF THE FALL OF THE WEST

    How the enlightenment was only successful in science, and entirely wrong in everything else – and how the enlightenment was unique to the British, and that all other civilizations reacted *against it*, in a counter-enlightenment, culminating in the Pseudoscientific era (Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Frankfurt) the same way that all other civilizations reacted against Greek reason and Roman law in the ancient world(christianity, rabbinical judaism, islamism, confucianism), and the same way that all other civilizations reacted against European Aryanism: ‘heroism, truth, sovereignty, contractualism, competition, and ‘domesticationism’ in the dawn of civilization by producing organized religion (the indo-iranian branch of indo europeans)

    4) RESTORATION OF THE WEST:

    How to restore western civilization to its previous rates of success by completing the scientific Enlightenment and restoring markets in everything: defense/emergency/care, reproduction, production, commons, polities. And in particular, the extension of involuntary warranty on goods and services brought to market, to *information* that is brought to market (published). And the restoration of multiple houses for the purpose of restoring a market for trades between the classes.

    CLOSING

    Propertarianism technically refers to the descriptive ethics alone. But we bundle all of these ideas under the same ‘banner’ (term) for the sake of expediency. But one can advocate for a communist, socialist, democratic humanist, classical liberal, republican, monarchic, fascist, or dicatorship polity using testimonialism, acquisitionism, and propertarianism, and create a constitution for one under strictly (formal operational logic) constructed natural law. But one must do so truthfully and honestly.

    Someone who values each of those governments may or may not have a harder time truthfully defending his preferences. But we can then create compromises between such different political orders, rather than attempt to impose such a political order upon everyone.

    It is very easy to propose sovereignty, classical multi-house monarchy, markets in everything and to do so truthfully and honestly – because that order provided the origin and evolution of the technology of truthful speech we call ‘science’. But to do so we must admit also that the outcome of such a political order is eugenic. Conversely it is harder to propose a democratic humanist order, because it is dysgenic. in the short term it is easier to tolerate a dysgenic order. In the long term it is devolutionary and will destroy the ability to produce either a democratic humanist OR a classical monarchic. For the simple reason that every person at the bottom is more damaging to the political, social, and economic order than every person at the time is advantageous. The uncomfortable history of man is that a minority of men have domesticated men, the way men domesticated all our domesticated animals. And more uncomfortable, that men domesticated women before that. And that’s the origin of our intuitionary skill at domestication.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 10:47:00 UTC

  • “PROPERTY IN TOTO”: THE BASIC IDEA IS VERY SIMPLE (Eli Harman)(important idea) E

    “PROPERTY IN TOTO”: THE BASIC IDEA IS VERY SIMPLE

    (Eli Harman)(important idea)

    Eli Harman: —“The term Curt Doolittle uses is “property in toto” (property in all of its forms.)

    But the basic idea is simple as day. It’s just that property is whatever people demonstrate the willingness and ability to claim and defend as their own, either individually, or in common.

    That could be physical, private, property, or it could be the market value of the same.

    It could be physical, common, property, like a park.

    It could be common, intangible, property, like public order and decency, the integrity of their language, truth in the “marketplace of ideas,” the ancestral gene pool, or something else.

    It could be private but intangible, reputation, intellectual property, honor, etc…”— Eli Harman

    MORE:

    The institution of Property is held in place by competition via judicial competition using natural law. We do not have to advocate for any form or limit to the definition of property in order to limit ‘discretionary rule’ and to retain ‘rule of law’. We merely have to demonstrate that any claim to property was obtained by homesteading, transformation (production), or exchange, without violating the One Law of Natural Law: the requirement for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to productive externality.

    This technique is called Via Negativa: we do not define Property per se. We define only what Property is not: that which is claimed as property(control) but obtained by the imposition of costs upon that which others have invested to obtain an interest in.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-14 20:56:00 UTC

  • Definition: Natural Law

    PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law) Thou shalt not, by word, deed, absence of word or deed, impose or allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

    NOTE: Fully understanding this one law may also require: 1) the knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest. 2) the definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against *and* have demonstrated an interest. 3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services. If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really). This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.

  • Definition: Natural Law

    PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law) Thou shalt not, by word, deed, absence of word or deed, impose or allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

    NOTE: Fully understanding this one law may also require: 1) the knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest. 2) the definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against *and* have demonstrated an interest. 3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services. If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really). This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.

  • NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN I define Natural Law as: NEGATIVA: non-provocation:

    NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN

    I define Natural Law as: NEGATIVA: non-provocation: non imposition of costs against property in toto: that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in without imposing costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in. POSITIVA: reward: the requirement that we limit our actions that affect the property-in-toto of others to those that cause productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 10:39:00 UTC

  • NOVEL CONCEPTS IN PROPERTARIANISM (BY SINGULAR DISCOURSE)

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/12/07/novel-concepts-in-propertarianism-by-singluardiscourse/THE NOVEL CONCEPTS IN PROPERTARIANISM

    (BY SINGULAR DISCOURSE)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 13:17:00 UTC

  • SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 13:12:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW AND THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS (Curt with Summary by Bill Joslin) In

    NATURAL LAW AND THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS

    (Curt with Summary by Bill Joslin)

    In the end, any moral commons is possible, while no immoral commons is possible. This allows for competing moral commons but denies competition from immoral commons.

    I have found no reason why police have discretion to suggest prosecution except where there is evidence of conspiracy to prevent prosecution.

    I have found no reason why police have discretion to suggest prosecution of crimes against the informational commons when all citizens are interested parties and can prosecute violations of the informational commons – or prosecute attempts to prevent truth from entering the informational commons.

    Islam would not survive, some of the ‘pseudo-arts’ would not survive, just as pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-science would not survive.

    Conversely can you imagine the INDIRECT education this would provide to people in the same way that scientific reasoning has indirectly produced the Flynn effect (along with reducing the number of the low end outliers)?

    Imagine a world where disinformation and deception are readily eliminated from the public discourse. How would that effect private discourse?

    one does not need a positiva program. we need only a negativa program. every person on earth will then work to produce a host of positiva programs.

    Most of philosophical history, as most of religious history, has been attempting to develop positivia programs. And they all result in stagnation.

    Meanwhile the west incrementally evolves the common law and we invent philosophies and ideologies and narratives in each generation.

    By a monopoly negativa of the Natural, empirical, judge discovered, common law, we create the possibility of a market in everything – including information.

    But just as we have deprived people of murder, then harm, then theft, then fraud, then conspiracy, we can deprive people of disinformation and suggestion – an extension of interpersonal fraud by the use of media.

    —“^^ okay. So now… if the rights and privileges afford police (to arrest and detain) and judges (to decide resolution) is extended to the whole populace (and incomplete terms but will leave for the moment) then anyone can enforce the law – the larger the market the less likely the market can be used for abuse. Every man and judge, every man an enforcer, every man a gaurd. One natural law makes this possible as the burden to fully understand it does not have tlnearly the same costs as a law degree today”—Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 09:03:00 UTC

  • can I learn propertarianism? (ie:without reading 3000 posts on propertarianism.c

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/How can I learn propertarianism?

    (ie:without reading 3000 posts on propertarianism.com)

    SHORT VERSION: GO TO THIS PAGE

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/

    Scroll down to “How Can I Learn Propertarianism (Natural Law)?”

    You’ll see a bulleted list of the basic things to do.

    LONG VERSION

    It depends on what background you’re coming from.

    I’d suggest talking with one of these guys;

    Bill Joslin, Moritz Bierling, William Butchman, Josh Jeppson

    They seem to give me quite a bit of feedback on it. And they each look at it differently.

    But if you can’t get what you want from one of them, there are about 20 other guys I can easily roll of the top of my head who can maybe help you bridge the gap.

    It’s not terribly easy. Gotta be honest.

    We’re going to try to make it easier.

    But for ‘early adopters’ we don’t have the documentation complete so to speak. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 22:18:00 UTC