A PHILOSOPHER INQUIRES FOR FALSEHOOD, A PROPERTARIAN INQUIRES FOR THEFT.
In most arguments it is a given that they are false. Instead, seek not to prove the leftists false, but seek to prove them thieves.
Then respond with, why are you not willing to trade with me? Why must you lie and steal from me?
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 06:32:00 UTC
https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/07/26/tired-nap-wired-npp/TIRED: “NAP” WIRED: “NPP”
(I’m stunned by the work in this article.)
You see. It takes a couple of years of work. But if you spend a couple of years at Propertarianism, you will do better communicating it than I do.
Wonderful post. I’m inspired.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 06:06:00 UTC
THOUGHTS, WORDS, DEEDS
“Maybe I should punch him” Thought.
“I am going to punch you” Words.
“I punched him.” Deeds.
Violence is the only method of enforcing rights.
(by Liam Eddy )
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 04:52:00 UTC
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/natural-law.htmWHAT DOES NATURAL LAW MEAN?
(with updates by Doolittle)
Natural Law
Natural Law – What is Law?
Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Indeed, 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.
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 – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence
Natural Law is 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.
Natural Law – The History
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 — 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 — 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)
— ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—-
The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016)
(Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German, Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German, Doolittle/American.
The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation, that 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.
— ADDED BY DOOLITTLE—-
Natural Law – The Conclusion
In the end, where does law come from? The Theory of Natural Law maintains that certain moral laws transcend time, culture, and government. There are universal standards that apply to all mankind throughout all time. These universal moral standards are inherent in and discoverable by all of us, and form the basis of a just society.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 02:19:00 UTC
Natural Law (Empirically Discovered Law) consists of general rules, that are location, demographic, custom, culture, and religion independent methods of providing decidability in matters of conflict.
Natural Rights (Desirable Contract Provisions) consist of those general rules, stated not as negative prohibitions, but as positive aspirations, such that all governments must bring into being – regardles of location, demographic, custom, culture, and religion, as a list of those conditions under which the government will exercise violence in order to resolve conflicts, so that prosperous cooperation can continue – given that the government is the insurer of last resort.
By combining Natural Law, and Natural Rights, we produce RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS of the natural CONTRACT for COOPERATION that is necessary for humans (or any sentient being), to avoid parasitism, predation, conflict, and war.
SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES
Natural(Obligations) Law and Natural Rights are consequently reducible to a very simple set of laws:
1- That in the choice between avoidance (boycott), cooperation (trade), and conflcit (war), it is only rational to avoid war in the absence of parasitism and predation.
2 – That our moral instincts, which punish cheating even if very costly, are reducible to the prohibition on parasitism in order to preserve the incentive for cooperation, because of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, and the disproportionate loss of non-cooperation, and that catastrophic loss of conflict.
3 – That the differences in our moral instincts are reducible to our reproductive differences:
PHYSICAL LAWS
These laws are then reducible to very simple physical law: that genetic organisms, particularly animals that can move, discover patterns by which they can capture free energy, use it, and export the unusable as waste heat.
Or put another way: no organism can survive if it is the subject of sufficient parasitism that such parasitism will reduce its reproductive consequences.
Ergo: there is no altruism in nature, because its suicidal. At best we find kin selection that is not.
SO IN CLOSING
Natural law is a consequence of the conservation of energy in physical law and nothing else.
https://www.quora.com/Does-evolutionary-theory-presuppose-a-preceding-grand-design-or-natural-law
Natural Law (Empirically Discovered Law) consists of general rules, that are location, demographic, custom, culture, and religion independent methods of providing decidability in matters of conflict.
Natural Rights (Desirable Contract Provisions) consist of those general rules, stated not as negative prohibitions, but as positive aspirations, such that all governments must bring into being – regardles of location, demographic, custom, culture, and religion, as a list of those conditions under which the government will exercise violence in order to resolve conflicts, so that prosperous cooperation can continue – given that the government is the insurer of last resort.
By combining Natural Law, and Natural Rights, we produce RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS of the natural CONTRACT for COOPERATION that is necessary for humans (or any sentient being), to avoid parasitism, predation, conflict, and war.
SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES
Natural(Obligations) Law and Natural Rights are consequently reducible to a very simple set of laws:
1- That in the choice between avoidance (boycott), cooperation (trade), and conflcit (war), it is only rational to avoid war in the absence of parasitism and predation.
2 – That our moral instincts, which punish cheating even if very costly, are reducible to the prohibition on parasitism in order to preserve the incentive for cooperation, because of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, and the disproportionate loss of non-cooperation, and that catastrophic loss of conflict.
3 – That the differences in our moral instincts are reducible to our reproductive differences:
PHYSICAL LAWS
These laws are then reducible to very simple physical law: that genetic organisms, particularly animals that can move, discover patterns by which they can capture free energy, use it, and export the unusable as waste heat.
Or put another way: no organism can survive if it is the subject of sufficient parasitism that such parasitism will reduce its reproductive consequences.
Ergo: there is no altruism in nature, because its suicidal. At best we find kin selection that is not.
SO IN CLOSING
Natural law is a consequence of the conservation of energy in physical law and nothing else.
https://www.quora.com/Does-evolutionary-theory-presuppose-a-preceding-grand-design-or-natural-law
It’s not an opinion. Intersubjectively verfiable property must result in libertinism.
Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 16:59:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765593956877033481
Reply addressees: @xenaarchy
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/765555869098516481
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/765555869098516481
—“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
—“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
(a) Libertines (anarcho capitalists) differ from libertarians (jeffersonian contractualists), where Contractualist Libertarian = do no harm to the commons, and anarchist libertine = do no good to the commons. This is the underlying principle of decidability in libertinism (anarcho capitalism): avoid costs of physical, normative, an cultural commons, where the principle of decidability in libertarianism is merely the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation.
(b) no anarcho capitalist polity can form out of rational economic incentives because without commons and territory on low cost trading routes, any such polity must be endogenously parasitic.
(c) no anarcho capitalist can retain desirable, productive individuals in competition with other societies that do produce commons that add multipliers to the market for reproduction and production.
(d) any anarcho capitalist polity that did survive would be limited to endogenously parasitic members, and those polities that bore the parasitism would eventually, when in a period of stress, colonize, conquer, or destroy such a polity (pirates, drug dealers, money launderers etc).
(e) Ergo no anarcho capitalist society is possible -and its arguable whether one was desirable. If you need a nearly lawless borderland and will bear the costs to consumption of living there, then go. Antartica, Siberia, and canada contain vast areas of unused territory because it has not economic value higher than it’s costs of survival in harsh conditions.
The only possible liberty is that of the anglo saxons: contractualism. And the only means of achieving it is to eliminate demand for the state as a suppressor of aggression and retaliation by the use of the common law to prohibit the imposition of costs on life, kin, relations, things, built capital, norms, traditions, and institutions.
There is only one possible form of liberty then: the only social science man has discovered: rule of law, natural law, common judge discovered law, universal enfranchisement, and universal accountability, and universal reciprocal insurance.
Curt
https://www.quora.com/How-would-an-Anarcho-Capitalist-society-look-like-in-the-long-run