Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • HONESTY, TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUTH VS PARASITISM AND DISCOUNTING. Honestly, truthfu

    HONESTY, TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUTH VS PARASITISM AND DISCOUNTING.

    Honestly, truthfulness, and truth are three different things.

    Honesty is what you believe prior to criticism, truthfulness is demonstration of scientific warranty having performed thorough criticism, and analytic truth is something we are likely prohibited from knowing, except as tautology. It is extremely difficult to make fallacious arguments if they are stated truthfully.

    People want to rely upon religious argument, moral argument, and rationalist argument, instead of scientific (truthful) speech: because it allows them to lie. Religious argument is an authoritarian mythos – often for the common good, because it allowed us to overcome tribalism – but just as often not. Moral argument without Propertarian criticism is an excellent means of lying because it forces guilt and shaming into the conversation. Rationalism is an exceptional means of lying because it forces verbalism into the argument. Postmodernism is the most masterful lie ever constructed after religion.

    —“But, … are you lying if you think you are telling the truth?”—

    This in itself is a verbalism: imprecise language that permits deceit through obscurity. The correct statement is, “if I fail to warranty by due diligence my statements, I am engaged in an act of willful ignorance.” Most of us engage in willful ignorance in order to use deceit to justify our discounts (parasitism). All language is negotiation, and all moral argument is justification. Truth isn’t kind to our justifications. But truthfulness is as necessary a commons as is property.

    – Humans acquire. We attempt to obtain the greatest benefit, in the shortest time, with the least effort, with the greatest certainty, at the lowest risk.

    – Cooperation is a multiplier on acquisition.

    – Parasitism in all its forms is a disincentive to cooperate: murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by indirection, fraud by obstruction, free riding, privatization of the commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, invasion, conquest, and predation.

    – Parasitism is an unearned discount (theft) on cooperation. Commons are a premium on cooperation.

    – Cooperation, norms, truth telling, and property are costs – the premiums we pay for cooperation.

    – Everything else is theft.

    – Economic velocity and group production, acquisition and consumption are the result of the total suppression of parasitism in all its forms. The greater the suppression of parasitism, the greater the warranty of truth telling, the higher the economic velocity.

    It’s just math really.

    Humans are entirely algorithmically expressible creatures.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 05:34:00 UTC

  • MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART II —“who is the parasite, the mother or the fetus?

    MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART II

    —“who is the parasite, the mother or the fetus?”—

    The mother parasitically consumes the life of the child killed.

    The mother parasitically imposes costs on society if she is not capable of provision.

    The only non violation of the prohibition in parasitism that we call morality is to bear, and support a child.

    As such the entire feminist movement other than property rights rendering all equal under the law is an immoral deceit for the single purpose of escaping resposubikity for her inability to control her impulsesu. Just as the entire penal system exists to punish men who act parasitically, the moral code, property rights and family structure evolved to prevent women from engaging in parasitism.

    The manorial system and our prudish morality existed largely to prevent reproduction by immoral women who would then subject the rest of us to moral hazard – in other words, bearing a child one cannot support is a form of entrapment. A deceit. A fraud. A theft.

    Women need oppressing in reproduction since they use parasitism as a reproductive strategy.

    The west evolved faster because we supprssed our underclasses from reproducing.

    Women have used democracy to reinstitute parasitism as the primary means of reproductive strategy.

    The historical narrative is one of demonic males. But the equally obvious historical narrative is parasitic females.

    This is profound. It is quite the opposite of the anglo enlightenment argument that has failed under democracy.

    It is quite the opposite of the feminist narrative.

    The operational narrative is that man rose out of barbarism by controlling the reproduction of parasitic females through the institutions of family and property rights.

    And socialism(male) and feminism(female) is just another attempt to regress into dysgenic reoroducion.

    The conflict is not between classes but between eugenic and dysgenic reproduction.

    Marx was not only wrong, he was a justificationary fraud.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 03:38:00 UTC

  • If you can choose to abort, I can choose not to support. There is no difference.

    If you can choose to abort, I can choose not to support. There is no difference.

    ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.***

    ie: parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-19 03:28:00 UTC

  • MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART 1 As mother, you do not have the moral justification

    MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART 1

    As mother, you do not have the moral justification to kill your offspring unless your offspring will kill you – all other arguments are illogical.

    You certainly CAN kill your offspring for other reasons, just as I can kill you for other reasons, or you can kill anyone else for other reasons.

    Now, you might say that killing is pragmatic. And I have no problem with killing. But you cannot deceive others by obscurant argument that you are not killing. You are in fact, killing.

    As for Parasitism: a child is not parasitic for the simple reason that it is an offspring (kin). You acted to create the child. It is the reason that you exist.

    As for taboos: the purpose of traditional taboos is moral and logical: you should take all precautions possible so that you kill as infrequently as possible.

    But that said, we should preserve the stigma that one is killing, precisely because one is in fact, killing. Murder is murder. Whether we choose to prosecute murderers is a matter of willingness. But our willingness to prosecute murderers is a choice, while the act of murder is a fact.

    I have no problem with killing. I argue that we need to do a LOT of killing at present. But I have a problem with deceit. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of killing the unborn and not killing the repeated violent offenders.

    But then, that’s feminism’s deceit at play: (a) women are victims and devoid of responsibility for their actions, and (b) women are fully capable of military participation, and membership in the special forces. OR (a) abortion is a woman’s right, and (b) we cannot raise animals for fur. OR (a) abortion isn’t murder, and (b) women’s almost universal insistence that their children are good, and (c) women’s almost universal defense of their criminal and murderous offspring.

    All speech is justification. The question is only whether we justify moral or immoral action. And moral action is that which does not break the contract for cooperation. And the contract for cooperation is one in which we do not impose costs upon others.

    **So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.** )

    The parasitic argument cannot hold, since demonstrated feminist behavior in all walks of personal and political life, is parasitic.

    While I could write an entire book on the subject, using thousands of similar examples, as far as I know the last sentence: ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.*** is the final word on the matter.

    Unpleasant truths are unpleasant truths.

    THE PURPOSE OF THIS ARGUMENT: SPEAK TRUTH.

    I am not making such a grand argument really. There is nothing of moral equivalency about it. Instead, it’s a very simple, but profoundly important argument: “BE TRUTHFUL”.

    If moral discussions appear complicated, or paradoxical, then falsehoods are contained in the propositions.

    Just as mothers must discipline children, men must discipline men. Violence occurs when the accumulated incentives are insufficient to discipline men. Violence also occurs when incentives outweight costs. (Crimea/Donbas, Kuwait, Hungary).

    But deception, is just deception, and makes rational resolution of differences impossible. That is why this debate is interesting. It is very simple. It is not a moral question. It is not a question between mother and child. It is a question of what we will tolerate from one another while still maintaining cooperation.Political order being our most complex form of cooperation.

    Feminism, like its male counterpart socialism, is an elaborate verbal game of loading and framing in order to use guilt to obscure and justify parasitism. And democracy is merely a slow road to socialism: parasitism.

    S THE ONLY MORAL GOOD IS TRUTHFUL, FULLY INFORMED, VOLUNTARY EXCHANGE IN THE ABSENCE OF PARASITISM

    The only common good is not a singular, monopoly optimum, but voluntary exchange (cooperation) in the absence of parasitism(non-cooperation) for the purpose of constructing commons.

    All majority-rule mandates are lost opportunities for voluntary and mutually beneficial cooperation. ie: theft.

    Curt

    PS: You should read these posts as follow-up.

    1) MURDERING THE UNBORN — PART II

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10153259110292264

    2) HONESTY, TRUTHFULNESS AND TRUTH (PART III)

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10153259239887264

    3) WE MAY NOT CHOOSE TO PUNISH MURDER. BUT ITS AN ACT OF MURDER. (PRELUDE)

    https://www.facebook.com/curt.doolittle/posts/10153255381997264

    (Note: Moral rules are justificationary because they are contractual. Conversely, the search for truth is critical).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-19 03:25:00 UTC

  • REVISITING THE NAP, AND STAMPING IT OUT WHEREVER WE CAN FIND IT. The non-aggress

    REVISITING THE NAP, AND STAMPING IT OUT WHEREVER WE CAN FIND IT.

    The non-aggression principle is a fallacious distraction specifically developed in order to permit deceit. True, one must not aggress, but that statement is meaningless without stating what it is we fail to aggress against.

    Under the NAP, as advocated by both Rothbard and Hoppe, and perpetuated by Block, the test of aggression is merely intersubjectively verifiable property. Under this fallacy, they argue that man SHOULD not retaliate, and must not retaliate, or he will be brought to court for his retaliation.

    But this test permits parasitism, and as Block advocates, even blackmail. And man retaliates against blackmail. We cannot explain away that man retaliates against blackmail. It is praxeologically irrational that man not retaliate against blackmail.

    The common law provides a means for preventing retaliation – and in large part that was solution that provided its origin: *to preserve cooperation by providing a means of retaliation, without the necessity of appeal to authority.*

    The test of demand for authority is that we must not aggress against anything that humans will retaliate against. And humans will retaliate against property-en-toto, not merely intersubjectively verifiable property.

    Rothbard attempted to preserve Levantine immorality. He attempted to preserve the opportunity to deceive. He attempted to preserve the ability to profit from unproductive activity. Rothbard attempted to preserve evasion of payment for the commons. Rothbard attempted to prohibit the construction of commons. Yet western high trust – the source of our universal economic advantage, the source of our science and reason, the source of rule by law and jury, is entirely dependent upon our ability to construct normative and material commons by prohibiting all human action that is parasitic, and even that which is unproductive.

    Conversely, without truth-telling, the common law, the jury, the normative commons, and total prohibition on the imposition of costs, wherein all possible disputes can be resolved under the law, without an authority, then, in such a condition, demand for the authoritarian state increases with the degree of those impositions that are not satisfied by law. As such, Levantine morality (immorality), de facto, praxeologically, without exception, increases demand for the state. Ergo, NAP is a source of demand for the state, not one of elimination of it. And we see this wherever Levantine low trust ethics are practiced.

    When you use the term NAP, you are invoking primitive, Levantine immorality. Instead, if you wish liberty, we must not impose costs upon one another. And our law must prohibit the imposition of costs upon one another. This eliminates demand for the state.

    Only by eliminating demand for the state, can we diminish it.

    The fallacious counter argument is that competition itself imposes costs upon others. But it imposes opportunity costs only. And without those opportunity costs, we cannot construct the voluntary organization of production that we unfortunately refer to as “capitalism”.

    So abandon the fallacy of non-aggression as one of the formal, logical, and moral reasons for the failure of libertarianism since Rothbard seized control of it from westerners, by the same means employed by the Marxists, socialists, postmodernists and neocons: mere saturation of the subject with repeated fallacies: loading, framing and overloading.

    Speak the truth. Impose no cost. Punish the wicked. Kill the evil. To do otherwise is to attempt to use deceit to purchase liberty at a discount, rather than to construct it by bearing the cost of doing so.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 12:47:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: CORRECTING HEINLEIN ON MORALITY –“Morals — all correct moral l

    PROPERTARIANISM: CORRECTING HEINLEIN ON MORALITY

    –“Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level. The basis of all morality is duty.”– Heinlein

    Terribly imprecise and inadequate use of antique religio-moral language to refer to a purely economic (human) behavior.

    It is not true that morals derive from the instinct to survive, but from the instinct to cooperate, and to gain advantage in consumption through cooperation. It is true that we cannot consider the intertemporally self-genocidal, fratricidal and suicidal to be moral – because that is irrational. But that tells us nothing about the reasons for, and causes of, our moral intuitions.

    Our emotional intuitions tell us to acquire if not to expense, and to avoid prevent even if it is so.

    Our moral intuitions encourage us to cooperate out of self-interest, and to avoid and punish parasitism out of self-interest.

    This is because cooperation is a multiplier on acquisition. And because parasitism eliminates the value of cooperation.

    So, duty, while admirable (and the central proposition of germanic civilization), is correctly stated as the payment of all possible fees into the intellectual, normative, material, and genetic commons.

    Germanic ‘duty’ refers to the total suppression of free riding on the intellectual, normative, material, and genetic commons.

    Men pay a disproportionate percentage of these costs. In no small part, because women largely engage in just the opposite. As has been demonstrated by their voting pattern in all democratic countries.

    Propertarianism solves all questions of human action.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 05:37:00 UTC

  • A DEFINITION OF PROPERTY (from 2013) I have developed a number of additional mea

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/01/15/the-complete-definition-of-property-excerpt-from-propertarianism/PROPERTARIANISM: A DEFINITION OF PROPERTY

    (from 2013)

    I have developed a number of additional means of saying the same thing, but it’s interesting how little it’s changed.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-11 06:53:00 UTC

  • (from 2013)

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2013/12/22/propertarianism-vs-libertarianism-universally-descriptive-vs-preferentially-prescriptive-but-still-all-rights-as-property-rights/PROPERTARIANISM

    (from 2013)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-11 06:51:00 UTC

  • UKRAINE IS EVIDENCE OF THE FOLLY OF HOPPE’S DEFINITION OF PROPERTY We have an ol

    UKRAINE IS EVIDENCE OF THE FOLLY OF HOPPE’S DEFINITION OF PROPERTY

    We have an oligarchical government in Ukraine. That government is populated by the people who own the property – not judges resolving conflicts. What has happened is that they either rent seek, privatize commons, or socialize losses wherever possible.

    As far as I can see, Rothbardian and Hoppeian arguments lead to Ukrainian despotism. Without prohibition on involuntary transfer of property-en-toto by full informed voluntary exchange, and the requirement for productivity, the law cannot be used to construct a condition of liberty.

    We have Hoppeian/Rothbardian law here. The courts resolve conflicts in physical property only.

    Hence, systemic, intergenerational parasitism.

    Hoppe may be right that only property matters in so far as he means it. However, Hoppe is wrong that the scope of property can be limited to the intersubjectively verifiable.

    Either your law is predicated upon property en toto, or you gave up your wealth of violence in exchange for being subject to indirect and dishonest predation.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-11 03:18:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM AND SATISFACTION IN MORAL ARGUMENT It is appealing to seek feeli

    PROPERTARIANISM AND SATISFACTION IN MORAL ARGUMENT

    It is appealing to seek feelings of satisfaction by criticizing the morality of one’s opponents; or the rejection of others’ criticism of one’s opinions on moral grounds.

    In propertarianism, we avoid almost all the various emotional distraction, loading, framing, overloading and consequential entanglements by identifying the various forms of property that are affected the described actions, and determine whether voluntary or involuntary transfer is being advocated (or caused), and whether such transfers are truthfully or untruthfully articulated. In this way we make clear arguments in economic terms that are free of loading and framing. But we do not escape the moral conclusion. Because, in the end, if you are a thief or a liar, we call you a thief and a liar. But we do it on logical, internally consistent, and unavoidable grounds.

    Religious argument in the form of scriptural decree; it’s reformation into Moral argument as rationalism; and its reformation into pseudoscientific argument as psychologizing; are all forms of deception perpetrated through the use of analogy, loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion, in an attempt to abuse our cognitive and moral biases, by largely guilting and shaming us into justifying one form of parasitism or another: involuntary transfer.

    Propertarianism replaces pseudoscientific psychologizing, moral rationalism, and religious scripturalism, with a single universal test, and a single universal operation. That single test being that the only moral action is the fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of property-en-toto, and the single operation of voluntary exchange.

    Propertarianism is a language for the logical analysis of the content of moral statements. In propertarianism all moral statements are commensurable. And and all moral questions are decidable.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-10 16:09:00 UTC