Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • IT IS NOT AS IMPORTANT TO HAVE ‘GOODS’ AS IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO HAVE ‘BADS’. Th

    IT IS NOT AS IMPORTANT TO HAVE ‘GOODS’ AS IT IS IMPORTANT NOT TO HAVE ‘BADS’.

    The greatest problem societies face is maintaining cooperation while at the same time suppression the underclasses – almost all of which present an tragic impediment to the improvement of society.

    This is the story of the 21st century: the reversal of the enlightenment fallacy that people are kept down.

    CAPITAL

    Human Capital (genetic capital)

    Reproductive Capital (breeding age females)

    Institutional Capital (cooperation)

    Normative Capital (non parasitism)

    Technological Capital (transformation)

    Knowledge Capital (education)

    Territorial Capital (trade routes etc)

    Resource Capital (resources and scale)

    Built Capital (monuments, improvements)

    Private Property (transformable capital)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-13 06:28:00 UTC

  • Natural Rights As

    [N]atural “rights” are those legal rights of appeal for defense or restitution with which productive men must warranty they insure one another in order to resist the natural ‘wrongs’ that man demonstrates when unproductive. Rights are those actions we insure one another against by collective action when they are violated. But the means of violation is always the same: the imposition of costs upon others, rather than engaging in productive activities. This lack of including the requirement for productivity, which was obvious to men of property, was an obvious requirement of nature, and therefore a natural law not needing insurance, but one insured by nature herself. An unproductive man in the company of productive men need not be judged by men unless he imposes a cost upon them. His failure of productivity is a judgement passed against him by nature. Women circumvented this principle and with it destroyed aristocratic, egalitarian, western civilization. The Russians and Chinese bought the Great Lie of Communism. Americans bought the Great Lie of Neo Puritanism. These were the great lies. The answer was very simple: just keep on with what we were doing and create new houses for women and the working classes, and preserve our ancient monarchies, and our ancient rule of law. Napoleon was the first catastrophe. He started the ball rolling. He was the first plunderer of Europe since the Muslims Sacked Rome. And he broke our relative peace.

  • Natural Rights As

    [N]atural “rights” are those legal rights of appeal for defense or restitution with which productive men must warranty they insure one another in order to resist the natural ‘wrongs’ that man demonstrates when unproductive. Rights are those actions we insure one another against by collective action when they are violated. But the means of violation is always the same: the imposition of costs upon others, rather than engaging in productive activities. This lack of including the requirement for productivity, which was obvious to men of property, was an obvious requirement of nature, and therefore a natural law not needing insurance, but one insured by nature herself. An unproductive man in the company of productive men need not be judged by men unless he imposes a cost upon them. His failure of productivity is a judgement passed against him by nature. Women circumvented this principle and with it destroyed aristocratic, egalitarian, western civilization. The Russians and Chinese bought the Great Lie of Communism. Americans bought the Great Lie of Neo Puritanism. These were the great lies. The answer was very simple: just keep on with what we were doing and create new houses for women and the working classes, and preserve our ancient monarchies, and our ancient rule of law. Napoleon was the first catastrophe. He started the ball rolling. He was the first plunderer of Europe since the Muslims Sacked Rome. And he broke our relative peace.

  • Retaliation Is The Test of Lying, Not Intent

    [R]etaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it. Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information. But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules. The anglo saxon version of the ancient wisdom – the silver rule: “do not unto others that what you would not want done unto you” is, it turns out, the epistemology of imposed costs. (Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)

  • Retaliation Is The Test of Lying, Not Intent

    [R]etaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it. Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information. But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules. The anglo saxon version of the ancient wisdom – the silver rule: “do not unto others that what you would not want done unto you” is, it turns out, the epistemology of imposed costs. (Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)

  • Hierarchy Of Ethical Logics

    (worth repeating) [H]IERARCHY OF ETHICAL LOGICS 1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..........Stories 2) Virtue Ethics.......(young)...............Biographies 3) Rule Ethics.........(inexperience adult)..Laws 4) Outcome Ethics......(experienced adult)...Science

  • Hierarchy Of Ethical Logics

    (worth repeating) [H]IERARCHY OF ETHICAL LOGICS 1) Pedagogical Myths...(very young)..........Stories 2) Virtue Ethics.......(young)...............Biographies 3) Rule Ethics.........(inexperience adult)..Laws 4) Outcome Ethics......(experienced adult)...Science

  • How Do We Identify The Commons?

    [I]nformation, Air, Water, Land, Physical Capital, Institutions, Norms, Traditions, Myths – people DEMONSTRATE that they treat these as commons: “that which may not be consumed”. That is what constitutes property-en-toto: that which man has paid costs (of any kind) to acquire and inventory.

  • How Do We Identify The Commons?

    [I]nformation, Air, Water, Land, Physical Capital, Institutions, Norms, Traditions, Myths – people DEMONSTRATE that they treat these as commons: “that which may not be consumed”. That is what constitutes property-en-toto: that which man has paid costs (of any kind) to acquire and inventory.

  • El significado del “incremento de la supresión”

    Original article by Curt Doolittle (http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/23/the-meaning-of-incremental-suppression/)Translation by Alberto R. Zambrano U. 

    [L]a lógica de incrementar la supresión del parasitismo por medio del “common law” o derecho consuetudinario .

    1. Los seres humanos adquieren al costo y defienden lo que han adquirido al costo.
    2. La cooperación es desproporcionadamente más productiva que la depredación.
    3. La cooperación es preferible a la depredación en la ausencia total de parasitismo, o lo que llamaremos aprovechamiento injusto o chuleo.
    4. Porque la cooperación tiene un valor desproporcionado, los seres humanos reprimen todo aquel aprovechamiento injusto incluso si el costo es muy elevado (castigo altruista)- ellos protegen la institución al vigilar en forma policíaca a los tramposos.
    5. Las reglas contra el aprovechamiento injusto, bien sea normativas o codificadas en forma de leyes, prohiben el parasitismo.
    6. Las prohibiciones habituadas en forma de leyes o normativas expresadas en las leyes proveen medios para la toma de desiciones en materias de conflictos.
    7. Las prohibiciones contra el parasitismo pueden ser positivamente expresada como “derechos contractuales”.
    8. Los miembros de una comunidad (accionistas en el mercado local), se aseguran mutuamente al suprimir la represión contra acuerdos de quejas conforme a las normas y las leyes.
    9. El common law (derecho consuetudinario) orgánico permite que el parasitismo no promueva nuevas formas y medios de expresarse y construye prohibiciones contra estas nuevas formas y medios en forma de leyes nuevas. Por ello, siempre se descubren nuevas leyes (esto es muy importante).
    10. Las sociedades de alta confianza usan el common law para ir incrementando la supresión de todas las formas de aprovechamiento injusto, dejando sólo la participación productiva en el mercado como la única forma de supervivencia.
    11. Como consecuencia, la reproducción de las clases inferiores es suprimida y la distribución de talentos se incrementa entre las innovaciones tecnológicas (eugenesia de mercado). Por ende se obvia la necesidad de que exista tiranía y redistribución.

    [L]a aristocracia, igualitarismo, moralidad, normocracia, meritocracia, ciencia y evolución de la eugenesia son mutuamente dependientes una de otra. El diagrama muestra cómo el incremento de la supresión del parasitismo comenzando por la supresión de las violencia por medio del fraude, conspiración, inmigración y conquista. Solo la civilización occidental ha sido exitosa en desarrollar la normativa de la verdad. Y sin decir la verdad no podemos tener un jurado. Y sin un jurado no se puede tener derecho consuetudinario. La verdad importa sobre todo lo demás. La seudociencia es meramente un misticismo monoteísta babilonia en ropajes nuevos. Y este nuevo emperador también está desnudo. La verdad es suficiente para rescatar a la civilización occidental. La verdad es más que suficiente.