Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • THE DECIDABILITY OF NATURAL LAW 1) Man -> Biological Necessity – biological inst

    THE DECIDABILITY OF NATURAL LAW

    1) Man -> Biological Necessity – biological instinct for reciprocity (positive-purchase of options on future cooperation, neutral-exchange of cooperation, and negative-retaliatory at high expense, for violation of reciprocity.) This is ‘objective morality: natural law.

    2) Normative Institutions -> man evolves normative institutions that we call ‘morals’. These morals vary from group to group because each group constructs various ‘contracts’ (habits) that we call norms, on top of objective morality. These habits attempt to construct a market of sorts suitable for the solution of certain cultural, demographic, and geographic problems. (marriage and inheritance habits being the easiest examples to study). Property rights evolved in concert with (a) division of labor and development of tools, built capital and territorial property, (b) inheritance of those assets, and (c) tribal, clan, village, extended family, family, and absolute nuclear family structures. ( Private property increases with class (independence).)

    3) Formal Institutions -> the formal standardization (think of property rights registered in law as a standardization of weights and measures that facilitate the ‘fit’ of cooperation and the means of dispute resolution upon the failure of cooperation.

    4) Logical Decidability -> the method of commensurability by reduction to natural law, when formal law fails, or normative morality fails, because of differences in local contractual assumptions. In other words, natural law provides a means of commensurability across normative and formal institutional contracts, just as the natural common law provides a standard of decidability between private contracts.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 09:15:00 UTC

  • non-imposition against property in toto: to total elimination of the incentive t

    non-imposition against property in toto: to total elimination of the incentive to retaliate.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 01:46:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804139452746649601

    Reply addressees: @grimsithe @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804116030335369216

    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/804116030335369216

  • Sovereignty is only possible under the reciprocal insurance of property in toto

    Sovereignty is only possible under the reciprocal insurance of property in toto by the promise of violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-01 01:42:48 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804138645959622660

    Reply addressees: @grimsithe @jeffreyatucker

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/804116030335369216

    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/804116030335369216

  • Propertarianism is the answer to Marxism – and its complete refutation

    Propertarianism is the answer to Marxism – and its complete refutation.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-30 06:21:00 UTC

  • BERENS ON PROPERTARIANISM AND THE RED QUEEN by James Augustus Berens (flawless)(

    BERENS ON PROPERTARIANISM AND THE RED QUEEN

    by James Augustus Berens

    (flawless)(insightful)(definitions)

    The Red Queen Hypothesis in the Natural History of Human Kind: competing human groups seeking to profit via the production of asymmetries in information and violence

    Thusly, from an evolutionary perspective, we see the development of human institutions as an evolutionary arm-race between competing, and co-evolving human social groups. However, the co-evolution has been asymmetrical due to differing geographies, historical particularities (path-dependent pressures), and class distributions leading to differential investments in institutional portfolios or what we call group-evolutionary strategies.

    Propertarianism seeks to solve the problem of history (the evolutionary-arms race in seeking profit through asymmetrical violence and information) through the moral application of organized violence and testimony, prohibiting theft, fraud, parasitism and predation, leaving man no choice but meritocratic competition in markets for association, reproduction, production, (moral) violence and (warrantied) information.

    That is, in more general terms, propertarians seek the transcendence of man through the incremental suppression of parasitism and predation in all social domains.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-28 00:15:00 UTC

  • Law

    Nov 11, 2016 10:38pm Humans create commands, legislation, and regulations. Laws, both physical and natural (cooperation), we can only discover. We cannot any more create a law of cooperation (natural law) than we can a law of nature (physical laws). The only difference between physical laws and natural laws is that since we have memories, we can cooperate across time rather than be limited to the moment of the difference in potential. (That might be hard to catch without pondering a bit.)

  • Law

    Nov 11, 2016 10:38pm Humans create commands, legislation, and regulations. Laws, both physical and natural (cooperation), we can only discover. We cannot any more create a law of cooperation (natural law) than we can a law of nature (physical laws). The only difference between physical laws and natural laws is that since we have memories, we can cooperate across time rather than be limited to the moment of the difference in potential. (That might be hard to catch without pondering a bit.)

  • Consequences of Sovereignty

    (worth repeating) 1) SOVEREIGNTY (leads to) 2) PROPERTY IN TOTO (leads to) 3) TESTIMONIAL TRUTH (leads to) 4) DEFLATIONARY/DECONFLATIONARY, (leads to) 5) REASON, RATIONALISM, EMPIRICISM, TESTIMONIALISM (leads to) 6) MARKETS IN EVERYTHING, (leads to) 7) DEFEATING THE RED QUEEN (leads to) 6) TRANSCENDENCE.

      0) THE BIRTH OF THE WEST: SOVEREIGNTY. THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONS 1) RELIGION: THE FIRST INFANTILIZATION OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS. (corrected with aristotelian reason, stoic and roman law) 2) CHRISTIANITY: THE FIRST INFANTILIZATION OF THE WESTERN INDO-EUROPEANS (corrected with empiricism, and anglo common law) 3) COSMOPOLITANISM: THE SECOND INFANTILIZATION OF THE WEST. AND THE NEW WEST. (corrected with testimonialism, and propertarian natural law) WHY IS IT WE MUST DE-INFANTILIZE MAN IN EVERY GREAT ERA?

  • Consequences of Sovereignty

    (worth repeating) 1) SOVEREIGNTY (leads to) 2) PROPERTY IN TOTO (leads to) 3) TESTIMONIAL TRUTH (leads to) 4) DEFLATIONARY/DECONFLATIONARY, (leads to) 5) REASON, RATIONALISM, EMPIRICISM, TESTIMONIALISM (leads to) 6) MARKETS IN EVERYTHING, (leads to) 7) DEFEATING THE RED QUEEN (leads to) 6) TRANSCENDENCE.

      0) THE BIRTH OF THE WEST: SOVEREIGNTY. THE COUNTER-REVOLUTIONS 1) RELIGION: THE FIRST INFANTILIZATION OF THE INDO-EUROPEANS. (corrected with aristotelian reason, stoic and roman law) 2) CHRISTIANITY: THE FIRST INFANTILIZATION OF THE WESTERN INDO-EUROPEANS (corrected with empiricism, and anglo common law) 3) COSMOPOLITANISM: THE SECOND INFANTILIZATION OF THE WEST. AND THE NEW WEST. (corrected with testimonialism, and propertarian natural law) WHY IS IT WE MUST DE-INFANTILIZE MAN IN EVERY GREAT ERA?

  • I don’t have anything to prove. Instead, I need to punish you. Make an example o

    I don’t have anything to prove. Instead, I need to punish you. Make an example of you. It immoral and unethical to let you live.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-27 15:37:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802899143157055488

    Reply addressees: @lrockhq

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/802896779570135040

    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/802896779570135040