No political action may be taken that is not reversible. Or framed alternatively: no action may be taken that one cannot pay restitution for the consequences. Or framed alternately: no government had the right to pursue immigration.
Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity
-
“All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational q
—“All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational quality++ and theft/fraud/conspiracy suppression–.”— Something I posted on twitter in response to this question. Man is a rational actor. He acts in his rational self-interest at all times, choosing immoral and moral actions by intuitive cost vs benefit; and we can find no exceptions other than kin selection – and arguably that is also in one’s self-interest. For this reason we do not make the world a better place, but instead, we create institutions that raise the cost of unhelpful behaviors, and reduce the cost of helpful behaviors. Some of the methods we use to suppress immoral behaviors are obvious (law, restitution, punishment), and some are not (the conversion of property from material goods to partial-title) because they make theft more difficult. Others are difficult to admit to: that the differences between wealthier and poorer societies is generally explained by the relative sizes of the upper and lower genetic classes, meaning that no amount of effort will help some countries prosper because there are just too many people at the bottom to incentivize with the inventiveness and productivity at the top, using organization provided by the middle. So while a one-child policy is necessary in Africa, the Muslim world, and south america it cannot be implemented without the equivalent of the Red Army or the Revolutionary Guard. Which India’s weakness – even literacy has been a problem. So we cannot eliminate a tendency as much as eliminate generations with those tendencies, and provide institutions that preserve positive and suppress negative tendencies. Man evolves locally and fast. But we must help man do so just as we did under agrarianism – which was not a kind process to those who could not transition to it. They are largely gone. Just as the various other incarnations of man are gone. And we eliminated them from the planet, while walking on foot, over a comparatively small number of millennia. If we look back over the past century, most of the harm was done by the communist movement, the facist movement to resist it, and the capitalist movement to eradicate it. The communist movement promised utopian results to backward nations that had not transitioned through the enlightenment. Just as Islam is a utopian movement promising utopian results to backward nations, and using the same strategy as communism except distributed on moral and religoius grounds using weaponized reproduction rather than distributed on economic and political grounds using direct rebellion – a slower path to the same ends: changing the order to one suitable to the underclasses and less suitable to the middle and upper classes. The pseudoscientific communist economic movement(Marx) was accompanied by the pseudoscientific social science movement (boaz) and the pseudoscientific psychological movement (freud), and less harmflly the pseudoscientific mathematical moveent( Cantor). And then when by the pseudoscientific cultural movvement (the frankfurt school). So my prescription for improvement for mankind is that we can continue the suppression of new methods of theft and fraud by defending the informational commons the same way we defend the air, land, and water from pollution, our physical commons, infrastructure and monuments from physical damage, and our rule of law, govenrment from damage, and our religions and traditions from damage: By outlawing pseudoscience. We could not outlaw pseudoscience until very recently because we have only begun to understand truth at scale in the 20th century. But now that we know, we can force upon people a warranty of due diligence in speech inserted into the commons the same way we force a warranty of due diligenc upon people who provide goods and services. Those due diligences are (Painfully Briefly): 1 – categorical consistency (identity and non conflation) 2 – internal consistency (logical) 3 – external correspondence (empirical consistency) 4 – existential possibility (operational language) 5 – ethical consistency (consisting of fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same.) 6 – scope consistency (defining limits, full accounting, and parsimony) We have many such other requirements in the law, and we use these requirements with academics when publishing. And there is no reason we do not demand these same warranties of political speech, which is far more consequential than academic speech. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute KIev, Ukraine http://www.drewgl.com/posts/4241
-
“All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational q
—“All improvement in cooperation comes from parallel increases in informational quality++ and theft/fraud/conspiracy suppression–.”— Something I posted on twitter in response to this question. Man is a rational actor. He acts in his rational self-interest at all times, choosing immoral and moral actions by intuitive cost vs benefit; and we can find no exceptions other than kin selection – and arguably that is also in one’s self-interest. For this reason we do not make the world a better place, but instead, we create institutions that raise the cost of unhelpful behaviors, and reduce the cost of helpful behaviors. Some of the methods we use to suppress immoral behaviors are obvious (law, restitution, punishment), and some are not (the conversion of property from material goods to partial-title) because they make theft more difficult. Others are difficult to admit to: that the differences between wealthier and poorer societies is generally explained by the relative sizes of the upper and lower genetic classes, meaning that no amount of effort will help some countries prosper because there are just too many people at the bottom to incentivize with the inventiveness and productivity at the top, using organization provided by the middle. So while a one-child policy is necessary in Africa, the Muslim world, and south america it cannot be implemented without the equivalent of the Red Army or the Revolutionary Guard. Which India’s weakness – even literacy has been a problem. So we cannot eliminate a tendency as much as eliminate generations with those tendencies, and provide institutions that preserve positive and suppress negative tendencies. Man evolves locally and fast. But we must help man do so just as we did under agrarianism – which was not a kind process to those who could not transition to it. They are largely gone. Just as the various other incarnations of man are gone. And we eliminated them from the planet, while walking on foot, over a comparatively small number of millennia. If we look back over the past century, most of the harm was done by the communist movement, the facist movement to resist it, and the capitalist movement to eradicate it. The communist movement promised utopian results to backward nations that had not transitioned through the enlightenment. Just as Islam is a utopian movement promising utopian results to backward nations, and using the same strategy as communism except distributed on moral and religoius grounds using weaponized reproduction rather than distributed on economic and political grounds using direct rebellion – a slower path to the same ends: changing the order to one suitable to the underclasses and less suitable to the middle and upper classes. The pseudoscientific communist economic movement(Marx) was accompanied by the pseudoscientific social science movement (boaz) and the pseudoscientific psychological movement (freud), and less harmflly the pseudoscientific mathematical moveent( Cantor). And then when by the pseudoscientific cultural movvement (the frankfurt school). So my prescription for improvement for mankind is that we can continue the suppression of new methods of theft and fraud by defending the informational commons the same way we defend the air, land, and water from pollution, our physical commons, infrastructure and monuments from physical damage, and our rule of law, govenrment from damage, and our religions and traditions from damage: By outlawing pseudoscience. We could not outlaw pseudoscience until very recently because we have only begun to understand truth at scale in the 20th century. But now that we know, we can force upon people a warranty of due diligence in speech inserted into the commons the same way we force a warranty of due diligenc upon people who provide goods and services. Those due diligences are (Painfully Briefly): 1 – categorical consistency (identity and non conflation) 2 – internal consistency (logical) 3 – external correspondence (empirical consistency) 4 – existential possibility (operational language) 5 – ethical consistency (consisting of fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externalities of the same.) 6 – scope consistency (defining limits, full accounting, and parsimony) We have many such other requirements in the law, and we use these requirements with academics when publishing. And there is no reason we do not demand these same warranties of political speech, which is far more consequential than academic speech. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute KIev, Ukraine http://www.drewgl.com/posts/4241
-
Q&a:Curt: Is There Any Morality Beyond Self Interest?
—“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”— I don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection. Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice). When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract. We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive. So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe. Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”. Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us. So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest. There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads). I hope this provided the answer you sought. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy or Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Q&a:Curt: Is There Any Morality Beyond Self Interest?
—“Do you believe that morality beyond self-interest is entirely false as a result?”— I don’t believe in anything, because the term is archaic. I can state that it’s a strong truth candidate, because despite extremely exhaustive efforts by highly biased researchers, we cannot find a single instance of moral action that is not in itself selfish through kin selection. Now, when we use the word ‘moral’ we must grasp that there is an objective morality in natural (necessary, consistent, and decidable), and normative morality (local group contracts for different sets of behaviors that produce group benefits from which individuals largely benefit), and individual morality (those subsets of moral choices I choose to follow and not). We conflate these two terms, just as we conflate law (natural law), legislation (contract or command), and regulation (arbitrary edict). But objective and normative, and individual morality are equivalent to natural law (true), legislation (contractual), and regulation (arbitrary choice). When I write I use moral for objective morality of natural law, and norm for normative morality of local normative contract. We can extend this basic principle from not only sentient cooperative groups, but to non-sentient groups, to non sentient individuals, to plants, to bacteria, to the natural elements that make up the physical world, and to our emerging understanding of the physical world: that we must fight entropy if we wish to survive. So it is not only illogical to engage in self-destructive action, but it is physically impossible so to speak, as it would violate physical laws of the universe. Now some creatures appear to do sacrificial things, but this is sacrificial only from the (fallacious) human perspective as individual pleasure-seekers. But from evolution and the physical world’s standpoint, once we have exhausted a BENEFICIAL reproductive role we are no longer valuable to the organism (the algorithm) as a whole. Thankfully humans are almost always beneficial to one another when they are alive and not harming one another. Even then, those who harm, may be benefitting the organism (algorithm) “man”. Now when we say self-interest, selfishness that signals possible parasitism, or non-payment for commons is something all creatures that cooperate retaliate against. So there is a difference between COMPROMISE (rational self-interest) and ABSOLUTE (and therefore irrational) self-interest. What is rational for all of us is to preserve the incentive to cooperate, and to prevent providing incentive to retaliate, yet being defensive enough to discourage offense against us. So in this sense, it is always rational to compromise with those with whom you are compatible, because compromise with those with whom you are compatible is in your self-interest. There are no rules without limits. If we cannot state the limits of any general rule, we state a falsehood because we cannot state a truth. This is why the wise speak in teleological ethics (science/outcomes), the informed but inexperienced and deceitful speak in deontological ethics ( rationalism/rules ), the young, lacking knowlege and experience in virtues (analogy/imitations), and children in punishments and rewards (goods and bads). I hope this provided the answer you sought. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy or Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Q&A: —“Curt: How Does Conservatism Differ From Ideology”—
Short answer? Empiricism vs IrrationalismCurt said: —I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer— . Other said: —Would you say this is the distinction between ideology and time-tested principle-based ideas like conservatism?— Conservatism: the ancient paternal order of parenting a family, tribe, and nation, into competitive success against other families, tribes, and nations. In the European World this refers to Aristocratic Egalitarianism (access to rule), Manorialism (access to production and consumption), family (access to sex, care, and reproduction), Religion (access to education, representation, insurance, and celebration). I tend to refer to the various conservatisms as class-movements within the aristocratic egalitarian system of cooperation, with the national socialists and 88’ers and such as the upper proletariat and lower working class(soldiery, labor, and demand), the traditionalists as the upper working class(nco’s, information and advocacy), the legalists as the middle class(officers, organization and choice), and the martial and judicial castes as the upper class (Monarchy, generals, force and limits). And each of our houses the church, the commons, the nobility, and the monarchy still exist but lack separate houses of government for their leadership to coordinate our activities eliminated our ability to use the government to organize in our interests via a market, and instead forced us to work through publications and arguments alone – controlled by the opposition – outside of the government. In other words, by the use of single house democracy (equality) we eliminated both our market for exchanges, our method of decision making, and our organization of collective command and control. From this perspective, egalitarian democracy places the classes which under aristocracy were mutually interdependent, into chaos, and puts us into slavery of the media, academy, special interests, and the state monopoly bureaucracy. Now, what does that have to do with your question? Well, it gives me a foundation upon which to answer it: Ideology refers to a method by which you incite groups under democracy, to vote for a particular representative set of policies, and ideologies need not be categorically consistent, logically consistent, empirically consistent, morally consistent. And moreover, it is better if tehy are not, since consistent arguments are open to rational criticism while ideological arguments merely justify and agitate intuitionistic desires. Ideologies are a property of democracy. A Philosophy refers to a set of categorically consistent, internally consistent, often externally correspondent at least in part, and very often morally consistent method of decision making at the personal (psychological), interpersonal (ethical), sociological (group), political (commons), and inter-political (group competitive) levels. And we can produce philosophical systems across all or just one of those levels. By the term “A time-tested principle” I assume you mean and empirically demonstrable via evidence of survival as a means of group competition against other groups. And yes, that is aristocratic egalitarian empiricism in a nutshell. Why? Well, we discovered truth because of our battle techniques (voluntary professional warrior caste) and the members of the military that must hold to plan and formation (oath), where military epistemology of military people is extremely unforgiving and therefore highly empirical, and lightly loaded, if not totally unloaded (which is what they try to teach you in basic training: giving unloaded information to superiors on command.) Anyone willing to buy a share (fight), could join the corporation (military), and as a consequence, obtain property rights (sovereignty), and voting rights (permission to speak his mind), and judicial rights (right to settle disputes). We evolved sovereignty(independence/individualism), debate, reason, logic, science, contract, natural law, independent judiciary, independent religion, independent government, as continuous extensions of the basic ethic of empirical decision making, truthful testimony, jury of peers, and voluntary contribution to commons. We say we invented the corporation but we had been practicing it since before recorded history. A conservative (aristocratic egalitarian) is not against experimentation, but in favor of empiricism: “show me first”. (a) it must be productive and non-parasitic (meritocratic), (b) it must be exitable if it fails, and (c) it must be reversible (restitution). If your experiment survives real world testing then we may expand these tests to larger circles. Once they have been proven we will adopt them as conservative (empirical) fully tested values (science). Conservatism has always been scientific. The problem is, we started to lie. We started to lie first, with Christianity. We spread that lie widely. Then when we came to modernity, and to the end of Christianity’s control over the government, we lied again: we said that man had been oppressed by the nobility, rather than domesticated out of barbarism through the continuous process of meritocracy. We destroyed the market for cooperation between the classes, and enfranchised both women and competitors. Then the Cosmopolitans came along and exaggerated our lie, saying that nobility was always parasitic rather than productive through domestication, and that the underclasses should and could rule, and that such a rule would not be parasitic but fair. So we are the victims of both western and Jewish lies. And the only way to restore our COMPATIBILITY versus competition is to use the organized application of violence to end all the lies and recreate a market for exchange, decisions, and command and control for all the classes. This is probably far deeper an analysis than you were looking for but as thorough, it is one we can share with others for years to come. So thank you for asking it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
Q&A: —“Curt: How Does Conservatism Differ From Ideology”—
Short answer? Empiricism vs IrrationalismCurt said: —I’ll say that I use the language of natural law to construct institutions of natural law: exchange, rather than trying to argue that one position is superior to another in order to enforce a monopoly decision that I prefer over the monopoly decisions that others prefer— . Other said: —Would you say this is the distinction between ideology and time-tested principle-based ideas like conservatism?— Conservatism: the ancient paternal order of parenting a family, tribe, and nation, into competitive success against other families, tribes, and nations. In the European World this refers to Aristocratic Egalitarianism (access to rule), Manorialism (access to production and consumption), family (access to sex, care, and reproduction), Religion (access to education, representation, insurance, and celebration). I tend to refer to the various conservatisms as class-movements within the aristocratic egalitarian system of cooperation, with the national socialists and 88’ers and such as the upper proletariat and lower working class(soldiery, labor, and demand), the traditionalists as the upper working class(nco’s, information and advocacy), the legalists as the middle class(officers, organization and choice), and the martial and judicial castes as the upper class (Monarchy, generals, force and limits). And each of our houses the church, the commons, the nobility, and the monarchy still exist but lack separate houses of government for their leadership to coordinate our activities eliminated our ability to use the government to organize in our interests via a market, and instead forced us to work through publications and arguments alone – controlled by the opposition – outside of the government. In other words, by the use of single house democracy (equality) we eliminated both our market for exchanges, our method of decision making, and our organization of collective command and control. From this perspective, egalitarian democracy places the classes which under aristocracy were mutually interdependent, into chaos, and puts us into slavery of the media, academy, special interests, and the state monopoly bureaucracy. Now, what does that have to do with your question? Well, it gives me a foundation upon which to answer it: Ideology refers to a method by which you incite groups under democracy, to vote for a particular representative set of policies, and ideologies need not be categorically consistent, logically consistent, empirically consistent, morally consistent. And moreover, it is better if tehy are not, since consistent arguments are open to rational criticism while ideological arguments merely justify and agitate intuitionistic desires. Ideologies are a property of democracy. A Philosophy refers to a set of categorically consistent, internally consistent, often externally correspondent at least in part, and very often morally consistent method of decision making at the personal (psychological), interpersonal (ethical), sociological (group), political (commons), and inter-political (group competitive) levels. And we can produce philosophical systems across all or just one of those levels. By the term “A time-tested principle” I assume you mean and empirically demonstrable via evidence of survival as a means of group competition against other groups. And yes, that is aristocratic egalitarian empiricism in a nutshell. Why? Well, we discovered truth because of our battle techniques (voluntary professional warrior caste) and the members of the military that must hold to plan and formation (oath), where military epistemology of military people is extremely unforgiving and therefore highly empirical, and lightly loaded, if not totally unloaded (which is what they try to teach you in basic training: giving unloaded information to superiors on command.) Anyone willing to buy a share (fight), could join the corporation (military), and as a consequence, obtain property rights (sovereignty), and voting rights (permission to speak his mind), and judicial rights (right to settle disputes). We evolved sovereignty(independence/individualism), debate, reason, logic, science, contract, natural law, independent judiciary, independent religion, independent government, as continuous extensions of the basic ethic of empirical decision making, truthful testimony, jury of peers, and voluntary contribution to commons. We say we invented the corporation but we had been practicing it since before recorded history. A conservative (aristocratic egalitarian) is not against experimentation, but in favor of empiricism: “show me first”. (a) it must be productive and non-parasitic (meritocratic), (b) it must be exitable if it fails, and (c) it must be reversible (restitution). If your experiment survives real world testing then we may expand these tests to larger circles. Once they have been proven we will adopt them as conservative (empirical) fully tested values (science). Conservatism has always been scientific. The problem is, we started to lie. We started to lie first, with Christianity. We spread that lie widely. Then when we came to modernity, and to the end of Christianity’s control over the government, we lied again: we said that man had been oppressed by the nobility, rather than domesticated out of barbarism through the continuous process of meritocracy. We destroyed the market for cooperation between the classes, and enfranchised both women and competitors. Then the Cosmopolitans came along and exaggerated our lie, saying that nobility was always parasitic rather than productive through domestication, and that the underclasses should and could rule, and that such a rule would not be parasitic but fair. So we are the victims of both western and Jewish lies. And the only way to restore our COMPATIBILITY versus competition is to use the organized application of violence to end all the lies and recreate a market for exchange, decisions, and command and control for all the classes. This is probably far deeper an analysis than you were looking for but as thorough, it is one we can share with others for years to come. So thank you for asking it. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute
-
What Do We Meany by Natural Law?
(with updates by Doolittle) A Little History of Natural Law – From The Good, to the Moral, to the Rational, to the Scientific.What is Law?Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8). The Stoics — A Rational and Purposeful Law The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights (Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German) 21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets) (Doolittle) The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation. Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.
-
What Do We Meany by Natural Law?
(with updates by Doolittle) A Little History of Natural Law – From The Good, to the Moral, to the Rational, to the Scientific.What is Law?Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician. Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8). The Stoics — A Rational and Purposeful Law The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory. The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD) The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property (Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights (Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German) 21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets) (Doolittle) The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation. Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy. In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation. In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.
-
Script for Video on Morality
NEW VIDEO. PROPERTARIANISM: LECTURE : SOCIAL SCIENCE : MORALITY I tried to give an exhaustively thorough analysis of morality. Approximately 60 Minutes. You may need to watch it more than once (I would). But it should give you a complete language for discourse on morality. OUTLINE (SCRIPT): ————— MORALITY (video script outline) Today I’m going to discuss morality. PURPOSE – confusion over my position on morality. — positive moral ambitions (gossip/rally/ambition) — negative moral prohibitions (law/rule/prohibition) — anything not immoral is moral. — a philosopher’s, scientist’s and judge’s duty (and ability) is not to recommend shoulds but to discover, decide and enforce limits. It’s the artist’s, priest’s and public intellectuals duty to propose ‘goods’. — I can say how institutions CAN be formed. I can say what we CANNOT do. But I do not claim a preference or wisdom over what we should do. That is a question of the MARKET for future wants. We calculate this together. The artists, priests, and public intellectuals make these arguments, and the market for commons can decide them. — What I can say is that in the choice between the Aryan(aristocratic egalitarian) program of transcendence (heroism, innovation, and domestication), that a transcendent program (eugenic) is decidably superior top an experiential (dysgenic) program. And that we must retaliate against the experiential and dysgenic when it imposes costs upon the transcendent and eugenic by interference in the market for cooperation. THE CONTINUATION OF WESTERN POLYTHEISM: A MYTHOS FOR EACH CLASS. We all want a single replacement for monopoly christianity. The left does and the parasitic-state does in an attempt to create a monopoly of positive and utopian discretion rather than a monopoly of negative and empirical, natural law. But just as we evolve fastest and compete most successfully when we deconflate our institutions, it’s just as important that we deconflate our mythos. Why? Becuase each class uses a different argument structure. Parsimony (‘complete’ science) (truth) Operationalism (physical science) (physical and natural law) Empiricism (social science and statistics) (systems) Historicism (evidence) (existential examples) Rationalism (noncontradiction) (precise meaning) Theology (obedience) (social contract) (“religion”) Reason (clarity) (analogistic understanding) Morality (loyalty) (social contract) (“religion”) Approval or disapproval. (opinion) (cognition)(myths) Emotive expression (reaction) (pre-cognitive) (instincts) We argue by class structure. We need myths (methods of argument and narratives) that correspond to the needs of our classes. In the past we even had three languages in the anglo world: – Latin for the intellectuals – French for the ruling class – German for the working class. We’ve had: – science for the intellectual class – Law for the ruling class – Contract for the merchant class – Religion for the working class – And our ‘family’ (hearth) religion remains our pagan one. Today we have – Natural law from the martial class – Psuedoscience and democracy for the priestly class – Science for the upper middle class – Contractualism for the merchant classes – Chrsitian Religion for the working classes – State-Religion for the underclasses EVOLUTION (CAUSALITY) Most life forms evolved to suffer predation by high reproduction. Others to avoid predation, at the expense of lower reproduction. Others to avoid predation and protect investments in offspring. Others to avoid predation, protect offspring and protect territories. Others to avoid predation, protect offspring, protect territories, and protect kin. Others to … follow kin (imitate). Others to … empathize with the intentions of kin. Others to … late maturity, and the need to empathize with the young. Others to … offer to assist with the intentions of others of our kin. and at this point we can say we cooperate.And cooperation is so profoundly beneficial to survival, reproduction, and production, that it gave us dominion over ourselves, and much of the natural world. But upon our ability to cooperate we also retained our previous instincts to engage in parasitism and predation. So we could either engage in cooperation, or parasitism and predation upon one another. To defend against parasitism we evolved moral instincts and intuitions – we retaliate, even at very high cost to us, against those who engage in parasitism and predation. Because when we cooperate we obtain extremely high rewards for doing so. Unfortunately, in the short term, free-riding, parasitism, and predation are extremely beneficial strategies for some at the expense of others. Fortunately, we learn to retaliate against these impositions – or at least wait for an opportunity to retaliate when it’s possible for us to succeed. DEFINE MORALITY? Morality then consists in the incentive to cooperate (positive), the incentive to retaliate(negative), in order to preserve the incentive to cooperate at interpersonal, group, intergroup, and indirect scales, at any scale. And to prevent our conversion, depopulation, or conquest at any scale. We do not reason through morality so much as feel it as an impulse to assist and a fear of retaliation. And we tend to exterminate those who possess less of it (sociopaths), and we tend to ignore or limit the damage done by those who possess too much of it (females and the weak who are overly concerned with defending against retaliation). Moral actions then are those that impose no costs on those with whom you wish to avoid retaliation, and instead invest in the returns of cooperation, and conversely that you retaliate for the imposition of costs upon the results of others’ actions, to preserve the value of cooperation for all. THE PROBLEM OF SCALE As we cooperate in larger and larger numbers we need new means of providing incentives to cooperate INDIRECTLY, and incentives to prohibit INDIRECT parasitism. As cooperation increases into a division of labor, the division of labor decreases transparency (audibility) and increases anonymity, so we divide up the positive: the labor of production, of knowledge, of perception, of value, and of advocacy. But we also divide up the negatives: the policing of our local groups against parasitism and predation internally and externally. So, as we scale, instead of just individuals engaging in parasitism, groups and the leaders of groups engage in parasitism, and we merely transform the interpersonal problem of morality, into the inter-group problem of morality. At this point in our history we organized to resolve intergroup parasitism, by suppressing local parasitism, imposing standard laws across groups, and creating what we consider ‘rule’. Rule is a profitable enterprise, both for the ruling and the ruled. Rulers centralize parasitism and suppress local parasitism, and make markets possible. Rule is a business. An industry. And like any business or industry it can be conducted productively or destructively. Thankfully it is very hard to conduct it parasitically for long. Thus the incentive of rulers (with intergenerational ambitions) is to create domestication (productivity) rather than parasitism. As we scale further trade enforces universal COMMERCIAL conditions of exchange regardless of local rule. Thankfully commercial conditions of exchange reflect interpersonal conditions of exchange, so parasitism between people who trade tends to decrease. However, as a consequence, it is possible for the organizers of production to engage in parasitism and predation. And initially, the courts possessed the power to regulate these matters, but during the industrial revolution, the state intervened and took away from the ordinary people the ability to judge such conflict, and the state intervened to seek rents (fees), because in the end, the state became the insurer of last resort to whom commercial interests pleaded in the case of malfeasance. What we see today is the attempt to further exacerbate this order by creating a world government of extractions, rather than Natural Law, and world government as an insurer of last resort for such enforcements. Our only solution is to incrementally suppress the centralization of parasitism that occurs with each increase in scale, by converting from what is probably a necessary centralization in order to suppress parasitisms, then the division of those functions into competing services regulated by the demand for natural law. So this is the theory of the evolution of rule: the suppression of local parasitism and rents by the centralization of those rents, then the incremental suppression of those rents as they convert from fees for service to extractive parasitisms. Government differs from Rule, in that its function is the provision of commons. The fact that we conflate government (commons production) and rule (suppression of parasitism) is another example of how conflationary argument and conflationary institutions explain the difference between rapidly evolving polities (west) and stagnating or declining polities (middle east), and very resistant polities (far east). The only institutions I know of that are required for cooperation: Military, Judiciary, Treasury, Government And the only informal institutions I know of that are required for: Property Registry, Banking, Education, Hospital, Police, Emergency. And the only infrastructure institutions I know of that are required: Transportation, Communication, Power, Insurance(Water, Air, Land, information) And the only institutions I know of that are necessary for reproduction without parasitism are: Family of some form from traditional to absolute nuclear. DEFINE MORALITY Define Morality, Objectively. NATURAL LAW As Natural Law: the preservation of the value of the incentive for cooperation and the elimination of the incentive for predation. Notice how I consistently illustrate the requirement for limits. It’s by stating botht he positive and negative that we demonstrate limits. The asians unfortunately call this practice balance limited by harmony, and demanding duty, and stagnated because of it. The as westerners we call this practice limits, unbounded by heroism, and preserve innovation because of it. The muslims unfortunately sought submission under a fixed system of, and have declined because of it. FIRST RULE OF LAW Define Morality as the first condition of Law: The law of non-imposition against property in toto. The obligation to retaliate against imposition against property in toto. Articulated as an increasingly complex portfolio of property rights. Where a property right provides justification for retaliation against an aggressor without demand for corresponding punishment by the tribe. DECIDABLE LAW Define Morality as Decidable Law : The ability to decide differences in presumptions of harm or innocence regardless of opinion of the parties, regardless of the cultures the parties are from, regardless of the states the parties are from. THE NORMATIVE “MORAL” SPECTRUM. MORAL BY ANALOGY. Define Manners, Ethics, Morals,Strategies, Legislation. Manners: …. Ethics: … between people Morals: … anonymous Group Strategies: …. see my other talk with butch. Legislation: … punishment for exiting strategy. NORMATIVE PORTFOLIOS ARE MORAL WITHIN GROUP ONLY, AND EVEN SO MAY NOT BE EXCEPT WITHIN STRATEGY. And a strategy may or may not be moral, only (successful). Define Normative Portfolios reflecting group strategies” That these are contractual substitutes for morals, not objectively moral. (Islam is an immoral strategy of full parasitism. judaism is an immoral strategy of commons-parasitism. Aryanism is a moral strategy in so far as domestication is transcendent. Hinduism and buddhism and confusianism appear to be less effective, but largely moral strategies.) INEQUALITY OF MORAL PORTFOLIOS Conflicting normative portfolios are not ‘equal’. And not relative at all. Some are lower trust more parasitic strategies, and some are higher trust lower parasitic strategies. The more moral group is the one with the higher objectve suppression of parasitism – independent of group norms. The less moral group is the one with the lower objective suppression of parasitism – independent of group norms. MAN IS RATIONAL – CAPABLE OF MORAL OR IMMORAL Man is rational. He has moral and immoral intuitions (instincts). These intuitions (instincts) help him calculate costs. Man is neither moral or immoral, he is rational. He is immoral or moral when it is in his interests to be moral or immoral. It is just almost always in his interests to act morally, since we retaliate so overwhelmingly when man and woman are not. In most circumstances, if one is not relatively safe from retaliation, parasitism, or predation, he will almost always choose moral action because even the risk of retaliation is not worth the benefit he claims from immoral action. This is why informational transparency is so important – it dramatically eliminates our ability to preserve incentives for immoral action, by making public the opportunity to retaliate. And since many of us who possess any kind of property at all, any kind of sustenance at all, possess this same interest, we increasingly invent and evolve institutions that suppress parasitism, just as when we scale we evolve methods by which to conduct parasitism. But no matter how we scale our institutions, the principle remains the same: impose no costs upon that which others THE LIMITS OF MORALITY: THE EXTRA MORAL ACTIONS We can engage in actions where we deem cooperation impossible, dangerous, or undesirable. When we engage in these actions, we act amorally – outside the limits of morality, but only in so far as we do not expect retaliation for our actions. Its the measurement of retaliation that determines the limits of our actions, and the limits of retaliation alone. EXPANSION I consider it moral to domesticate a group with lower objective morality and ambitions(islam), and immoral to corrupt a group with higher objective morality and ambitions(eastern europeans). BEHAVIORAL PORTFOLIO – WE RETAIN AND EXPRESS ABILITIES AS NEEDED. (discuss how we express classes as needed to compete) (discuss how we express genes as needed to compete) (discuss how we express norms as neded to compete ) (discuss how we can express laws as needed to compete) (discuss how fast we can do each.) MAN’S COOPERATION IS BOUND BY PHYSICAL LAW AS WELL AS NATURAL LAW Nature can exchange freely available energy and transform state. By analogy we can take only freely available energy from one another by exchange.