Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • PROPERTARIANISM: OVERTHROW PSYCHOLOGIZING AND SOCIOLOGY – THE TWO MEANS OF LEFTI

    PROPERTARIANISM: OVERTHROW PSYCHOLOGIZING AND SOCIOLOGY – THE TWO MEANS OF LEFTIST EXPANSION

    A friend reminded me the other day that with Propertarianism we can replace the use of psychology, psychologizing, and sociology in historical analysis, and most likely as disciplines.

    Because propertarianism provides us with the causal properties of human wants and fears.

    We are simple creatures.

    And Psychology, Philosophy and Sociology were the primary means by which the left took over the academy.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-06 02:29:00 UTC

  • MORAL JUSTIFICATION, CRITICAL TRUTH SPEAKING, FREE ASSOCIATIVE THEORIZING. (wort

    MORAL JUSTIFICATION, CRITICAL TRUTH SPEAKING, FREE ASSOCIATIVE THEORIZING.

    (worth repeating)

    (a) I must justify my actions in accordance with objective morality, local norms and laws. (I must show that I met terms of the contract for cooperation – thus if I err I am blameless and free of restitution.)

    (b) I must warranty my testimony is truthful by critically prosecuting it.

    (c) I must(can) Innovate (reason / Develop Theories) by any free associative principle possible.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-06 02:18:00 UTC

  • ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM’S IMPROVEMENT OF SHAKESPEARE “Love all, trust a few,

    ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM’S IMPROVEMENT OF SHAKESPEARE

    “Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none. Punish the wicked, defeat aggressors, and kill the evil. Only free riders turn the other cheek. Nobility pays the cost of creating good.”

    “Love all, trust a few, do wrong to none.”

    — William Shakespeare (All’s Well That Ends Well)


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-29 14:11:00 UTC

  • I agree to cooperate, even if it is to my detriment, as long as cooperation does

    I agree to cooperate, even if it is to my detriment, as long as cooperation does not devolve into justification for parasitism.

    The moment that we are no longer cooperating, but you are engaging in parasitism, and particularly when the state is engaging in parasitism, then I no longer agree to cooperate.

    But what does that mean? “I no longer agree to cooperate?” It can only mean two things.

    The first, is that I boycott opportunities for cooperation. The second is that I return to predation.

    Boycott is the only choice available to the weak.

    Predation is the choice available to the strong.

    My name is legion. We are many. And we are strong.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-21 03:08:00 UTC

  • WHAT IS MORALITY? (from elsewhere) Cooperation is extremely beneficial. As we ev

    WHAT IS MORALITY?

    (from elsewhere)

    Cooperation is extremely beneficial. As we evolved cooperation, we evolve instincts to prefer it. But Cooperation opens the door to parasitism, which negates the value of cooperation. So we evolved moral instincts that inform us to punish parasites and parasitism. In economics this parasitism is referred to more gently as ‘free riding’.

    That which is moral is that which is productive non-parasitic, and provides incentives to cooperate. That which is immoral is that which is unproductive, parasitic, and reduces incentives for cooperation.

    Most groups develop tolerances for, and reward for, mutual insurance. Insurance is not parasitic as long as it is not a form of dependency. Tolerance for paying this insurance normally decreases with kinship distance. Few cultures develop insurance regardless of kinship difference.

    Westerners were successful in both outbreeding (eliminating cousin marriage), and in generating widespread trade. And western culture for ancient reasons, uniquely favors truth-telling. The (protestant) west developed high trust, breaking the kinship barrier to insurance.

    So the (protestant) west was able to (in *fact*) produce the most moral society: the greatest restraint of parasitism, and therefore by consequence, the greatest economic output by systematically suppressing all free riding (parasitism).

    Whereupon, as a result of political inclusion during the enlightenment, the marxists, socialists and feminists via the novelty of democracy, systematically worked to use their newfound influence in government to circumvent the suppression of parasitism, and they institutionalized parasitism via the state – despite it’s eradication from institutionalization in norms.

    As limits to parasitism, and the fragility of parasitism , and the accumulated malincentives of parasitism became visible, the western state evolved however, into a vast insurance company. And the general principle it operates by is Rawlsian: “produce the greatest parasitism that does not kill the incentives of the host”.

    The question is, whether this general rule produces a society that is sustainable or not. Progressives advance it because they have faith in technology, conservatives resist it because they have little faith in the nature of man.

    Conservatives are correct in their understanding of man. Progressives correct in the (temporary) benefit of tolerating parasitism.

    But, the American experience as misinformed the world: the sale of cheap land is our equivalent of the ‘curse of oil’.

    The oil producers do not evolve advanced economies because of the malincenives of oil. Westerners destroy their high trust society because of the malincentives of selling cheap land to immigrating members of low trust societies without forcibly indoctrinating them into high trust western cultural norms.

    We are only as moral as we can get away with avoiding. Morality evolved AFTER self interest. And most of us seek parasitism wherever possible, whenever we will not be punished for it.

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-21 02:21:00 UTC

  • Each of us who chooses liberty, is his own legislator. There is but one law. It

    Each of us who chooses liberty, is his own legislator. There is but one law. It requires little interpretation.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-20 03:25:00 UTC

  • For Carolynn Smith —““He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his deal

    For Carolynn Smith

    —““He who is cruel to animals becomes hard also in his dealings with men. We can judge the heart of a man by his treatment of animals.”― Immanuel Kant

    In Propertarian terms:

    Any man who is cruel to animals is a risk to the rest of us. Child molesters, animal abusers, and serial killers are driven by the same motives. It is not that animals can possess rights. It is that we must posses standing in court by which to prosecute individuals who are a threat to us, to others, and to the pets in our charge that we cherish. Animals are wondrous pets. All of them. They are extensions of our family.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-05 00:41:00 UTC

  • Propertarianism solves the problem that Kant could not

    Propertarianism solves the problem that Kant could not.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-05 00:35:00 UTC

  • War is morally justifiable – and morality is justificationary – as long as one i

    War is morally justifiable – and morality is justificationary – as long as one is increasing the scope of suppression of free riding in all its forms.

    The converse is also true.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-03 06:01:00 UTC

  • (worth repeating) One of my objectives is to ensure that men knowingly pay the t

    (worth repeating)

    One of my objectives is to ensure that men knowingly pay the tax of constraining their violence in exchange for the benefits of doing so. But if those benefits do not exist, then there is no reason to pay the tax.


    Source date (UTC): 2015-02-28 13:43:00 UTC