Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • YES, BUT **WHICH** NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE? Non Aggression, or the Non Aggressi

    YES, BUT **WHICH** NON-AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE?

    Non Aggression, or the Non Aggression Principle (NAP), is an incomplete concept, and possibly an intentionally incomplete concept, and alone it is an untestable and therefore unscientific) statement. Without stating what one is prohibited from aggressing against, non aggression is a half truth, using a half statement, that hacks western altruism. Its an act of deception by suggestion.

    The question is the possibility of constructing an anarchic polity using the prohibition on aggression.

    But aggression against what?

    A) Rothbardian Non-aggression against Intersubjectively Verifiable Property

    –VS–

    B) Aristocratic Non-aggression against Demonstrated Property En Toto?

    The only means of providing an anarchic polity that is preferable to a non-anarchic polity, is by aristocratic ethics. Otherwise a low trust environment with high transaction costs is not preferable – and particularly not preferable to those with expensive capital to protect, and complex production to engage in.

    The NAP hacks western altruism by prohibiting aggression, which the westerner intuits as true, but only against intersubjectively verifiable property, which once understood, the westerner rightly deems immoral and irrational.

    Blackmail is the canary in the ideological coal mine. Blackmail causes retaliation because it imposes an unwanted and unnecessary cost, and breaks the contract for cooperation.

    Rothbard’s ethics produce ghettos, Mafias, and create demand for authority.

    The only reason to advance ghetto ethics is to justify parasitism and attempt to outlaw retaliation.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-15 00:42:00 UTC

  • LOYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure

    LOYALTY: Not seizing opportunities that impose costs upon the capital structure (genetic, normative, physical, institutional, territorial) that you and others have been contributing to. The limit of opportunity. (The family, tribe, and nation)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-12 07:51:00 UTC

  • ALT RIGHT, CONSERVATIVE OR RADICAL? My thing is truth. Propertarianism solves th

    ALT RIGHT, CONSERVATIVE OR RADICAL?

    My thing is truth. Propertarianism solves the problem of cooperation in morally heterogeneous societies by the construction of a market for commons just as we constructed a market for goods and services: but incrementally suppressing parasitism in the production of commons (government) just as we incrementally suppressed parasitism in the production of goods and services (the market).

    In that sense I am a radical(progressive), and propertarianism is radical (an alteration of the status quo. That propertarianism alters the status quo by suppressing the parasitism of dysgenic socialists, is either an improvement in truth or a devolution of free riding.

    I take the objective and empirical position that independent of human perception, propertarianism provides the means of the pursuit of all forms of capital (including genetic) as well as human experience, by suppressing parasitism, and suppressing the reproduction of parasites, through a one-child policy.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-10 03:12:00 UTC

  • Property is not a moral or legal absolute, but imposition of costs *is*. #nrx #t

    Property is not a moral or legal absolute, but imposition of costs *is*. #nrx #tlot #tcot http://www.propertarianism.com/ufD3Z

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 12:03:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629623808912138240

  • Property Absolutism is Objectively Immoral. URL: #nrx #tcot #tlot

    Property Absolutism is Objectively Immoral. URL:http://www.propertarianism.com/mulwz #nrx #tcot #tlot

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-07 12:01:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/629623331445153792

  • Property Absolutism is Objectively Immoral

    (important) [P]roperty-Absolutism violates the truth test of Full Accounting under Testimonialism; whereas the Non-Imposition of Costs does not. As such Property-Absolutism in Cosmopolitan Libertinism is a falsehood: a deceit for the purposes of theft, that forces retaliation, and violates the prohibition on the imposition of costs that makes rational cooperation preferable to predation.

    Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Property Absolutism is Objectively Immoral

    (important) [P]roperty-Absolutism violates the truth test of Full Accounting under Testimonialism; whereas the Non-Imposition of Costs does not. As such Property-Absolutism in Cosmopolitan Libertinism is a falsehood: a deceit for the purposes of theft, that forces retaliation, and violates the prohibition on the imposition of costs that makes rational cooperation preferable to predation.

    Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Property Is Not An Absolute. But The Imposition Of Costs Is.

    (important concept) (learning propertariansm) [T]he informational content of Property Rights is less than the informational content of the Prohibition on the Imposition of Costs Upon the Property-en-toto of Others.

    Property Rights are not an epistemological or decidable absolute in Propertarianism, but the positive assertion of the negative prohibition of the imposition of costs. One possesses rights to restitution for violations of property en toto not to the property itself, which one need no ‘right’ to – one need only acquire it without imposing costs upon others that both generate the demand to retaliate, and that violates the incentive to cooperate, and therefore is merely a moral consideration. So: – property exists prior to cooperation, – morality preserves cooperation, by prohibitions and positive assertions (advice) – law records both positive morality and negative on immorality – law records positive property rights and methods of restitution (or punishment). Property is not an absolute. The imposition of costs is. Property rights are constrained by the reality of temporal existence, and the prohibition on the imposition of costs upon others. The model is that if your store of grain exists during an era of crisis, that you may not use the opportunity to either determine who lives or dies, or to profit from suffering of others. It means that one sells the grain to them at prices that prevent your loss (an imposition of costs upon you). It means that in the example of the value of water in a desert, you will ensure that the sale of water to a dying man is not an imposition of costs, but not a means of increasing profits. It means that if he lacks the money to pay, that you must give him water now, as long as he commits to paying, and that you are due damages from him if you must collect. Profit from suffering violates the principle of productive exchange and the avoidance of retaliation. This fact amounts to a ‘shall-issue service to my kith and kin’, and that I shall seek profit only from mutually productive exchange, and not that I shall maximize profits in all circumstances. It means that one does not take opportunistic profits from the suffering of others without alternative. This fact separates the aristocracy of Propertarianism from the Libertinism of cosmopolitan libertarianism. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • Property Is Not An Absolute. But The Imposition Of Costs Is.

    (important concept) (learning propertariansm) [T]he informational content of Property Rights is less than the informational content of the Prohibition on the Imposition of Costs Upon the Property-en-toto of Others.

    Property Rights are not an epistemological or decidable absolute in Propertarianism, but the positive assertion of the negative prohibition of the imposition of costs. One possesses rights to restitution for violations of property en toto not to the property itself, which one need no ‘right’ to – one need only acquire it without imposing costs upon others that both generate the demand to retaliate, and that violates the incentive to cooperate, and therefore is merely a moral consideration. So: – property exists prior to cooperation, – morality preserves cooperation, by prohibitions and positive assertions (advice) – law records both positive morality and negative on immorality – law records positive property rights and methods of restitution (or punishment). Property is not an absolute. The imposition of costs is. Property rights are constrained by the reality of temporal existence, and the prohibition on the imposition of costs upon others. The model is that if your store of grain exists during an era of crisis, that you may not use the opportunity to either determine who lives or dies, or to profit from suffering of others. It means that one sells the grain to them at prices that prevent your loss (an imposition of costs upon you). It means that in the example of the value of water in a desert, you will ensure that the sale of water to a dying man is not an imposition of costs, but not a means of increasing profits. It means that if he lacks the money to pay, that you must give him water now, as long as he commits to paying, and that you are due damages from him if you must collect. Profit from suffering violates the principle of productive exchange and the avoidance of retaliation. This fact amounts to a ‘shall-issue service to my kith and kin’, and that I shall seek profit only from mutually productive exchange, and not that I shall maximize profits in all circumstances. It means that one does not take opportunistic profits from the suffering of others without alternative. This fact separates the aristocracy of Propertarianism from the Libertinism of cosmopolitan libertarianism. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

  • PROPERTY ABSOLUTISM IS IMMORAL (important) Property-Absolutism violates the trut

    PROPERTY ABSOLUTISM IS IMMORAL

    (important)

    Property-Absolutism violates the truth test of Full Accounting under Testimonialism; whereas the Non-Imposition of Costs does not. As such Property-Absolutism in Cosmopolitan Libertinism is a falsehood: a deceit for the purposes of theft, that forces retaliation, and violates the prohibition on the imposition of costs that makes rational cooperation preferable to predation.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (Tallinn, Estonia)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-06 23:58:00 UTC