Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • FOR HONOR AND GLORY Honor = Remember, Record, and Celebrate Glory = Reward with

    FOR HONOR AND GLORY

    Honor = Remember, Record, and Celebrate

    Glory = Reward with Celebration

    Meaning? Your offspring, your name, AND your deeds will outlive you.

    TERMS

    Thou shalt not lie,

    ….nor permit others to lie.

    Thou shalt not steal,

    ….nor permit others to steal.

    Thou shalt not harm,

    ….nor permit others to harm.

    Thou shalt not cause involuntary cost,

    …nor permit others to cause involuntary cost.

    Thou shalt not conspire,

    ….nor permit others to conspire.

    Thou shalt not conquer,

    ….nor permit others to conquer.

    Thou shalt not evade punishment of offenders,

    ….nor permit others to evade punishment of offenders.

    Thou shalt not forgive an offense until punished or restored,

    ….nor permit others to forgive an offense until punished or restored.

    Thou shalt not end a punishment once begun,

    ….nor permit others to end a punishment once begun.

    Thou shalt remember, record, and celebrate,

    ….the names and deeds of honorable men,

    ….and require others to remember, record, and celebrate,

    ….the deeds of honorable men.

    OATH

    I shalt not lie,

    ….nor permit others to lie.

    I shalt not steal,

    ….nor permit others to steal.

    I shalt not harm,

    ….nor permit others to harm.

    I shalt not cause involuntary cost,

    …nor permit others to cause involuntary cost.

    I shalt not conspire,

    ….nor permit others to conspire.

    I shalt not conquer,

    ….nor permit others to conquer.

    I shalt not evade punishment of offenders,

    ….nor permit others to evade punishment of offenders.

    I shalt not forgive an offense until punished or restored,

    ….nor permit others to forgive an offense until punished or restored.

    I shalt not end a punishment once begun,

    ….nor permit others to end a punishment once begun.

    I shall remember, record, and celebrate,

    ….the names and deeds of honorable men,

    ….and require others to remember, record, and celebrate,

    ….the deeds of honorable men.

    RITUAL

    Memorize names and deeds of the pantheon of heroes in each of the four disciplines, and celebrate them on holidays.

    IT IS THROUGH HONOR WE GAIN IMMORTALITY

    ————–

    (roughly copied from song of roland, with obedience removed)

    To at all times to speak the truth

    To guard the honour of fellow men. (again, force the truth)

    To fight for the welfare of all

    Never to refuse a challenge from an equal

    Never to turn the back upon a foe.

    To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun

    To refrain from the wanton giving of offence

    To protect the weak and defenceless

    To live to obtain honour and glory

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:42:00 UTC

  • THE CULT OF COOPERATION WITHOUT PARASITISM Now what gets lost in my political rh

    THE CULT OF COOPERATION WITHOUT PARASITISM

    Now what gets lost in my political rhetoric at times is that my driving moral bias is **the prevention of conflict without incurring sacrifice**. In other words, by accident of a puritanical family with a lot of internal fighting between my rather spoiled martial upper-class alcoholic father, and my rather disciplined, humble, temperate, and poor catholic mother.

    The pacifist solution is to tolerate substantial losses in order to avoid conflict that has higher losses. And as long as you live poorly and reproduce vastly this strategy works. Conversely, for small numbers, who breed slowly, to live well, they must not tolerate sacrifice or parasitism, and must force productivity. Otherwise they must resort to predation. So this competitive strategy can be represented as a triangular compromise between population, prosperity, and the expense of either submission or prohibition. (Yes I should graph this out. But you know I am kind of overloaded at the moment so it will have to wait. Basically, something on the order of: x=population, y=technology, 00->XY demand is tolerance for parasitism, Y(n), X(n) curve is tolerance which should form an X with tolerance. )

    But so my moral disposition, my moral INTUITION turns out to be an involuntary advocacy for conflict reduction without parasitism.

    As such I see the world as a sort of donut,with the aristocracy from all cultures in the hole, and the classes radiating outward, with further difference from the center representing the degree of normative interdependence of people within a tribal group, and the

    Aristocracy is marginally indifferent the world around, if we mean, demonstrated ability in production, distribution and trade.

    So this means that bringing aristocracy together, and capital APART to people is just a matter of reducing the cost of capital enough, and allowing elites to accomplish this on the behalf of their own people without too much interference from one another.

    It is very costly and dangerous to bring lower classes tog ether, and it is very beneficial to bring aristocracy together. The cost of integrating people who require normative similarities, where those normative similarities reflect biological differences in ability and preference is simply too high for more than fractions of the population. However, the only reason to move people from low trust to high trust is the failure of local governments to construct rule of law sufficient that the people do not require relocation (hiring nobility, or moving to nobility), just as we cannot move capital to people because their upper classes have failed.

    Democracy is of no value whatsoever, since it merely means that we create nothing but negative international incentives. This is counter to common intuition and current mythos, but it is demonstrably true, and logically very difficult to counter.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:03:00 UTC

  • Usufructs Under Propertarianism

    QUESTION: Curt Doolittle, how do you reconcile usufructs with Propertarianism?

    ANSWER:  Just for everyone’s benefit, lets understand what these things mean:

    DEFINITIONS 

    – Commons (common ownership) – where the three rights of ownership are held by more than one individual: 

    1 – Usus (use) The right to use or enjoy a commons, directly and without altering it. (Walking in a Park)

    2 – Fructus (the fruits of) is the right to derive profit from a commons. (Selling the blueberries you have grown in the park).

    3 – Abusus (abuse), the right to transfer, consume, or destroy. (Selling off a piece of the park, or building a home on it. So Abusus consists of two categories of rights
    ……(a) Right of transfer. (Emancipation) or ‘Mancipio’,
    ……(b) Right to consume or destroy, or ‘Abusus’.

    – Ownership: (monopoly) Possession of all three rights determines ownership.

    USUFRUCTUS
    The right to use and bear the fruits of some asset without the right to transfer, consume, or destroy it. 

    Usufruct is technically how land is treated in almost all civilizations: land is a commons distributed via some set of property rights or other (including none), and some set of limited ownership rights are transferred to individuals. 

    Under anglo saxon and current property rights I have the right also to transfer, even if I do not possess the right to destroy or consume. (ie: pollute). 

    So while Abusus means an abuse of the commons (Privatization), in the west the right of transfer is separate from the right of privatization, for example just as bitcoin is a fractional asset (divisible), in our western civilization, land is also a allocated as a fractional (divisible) asset. (A fairly uncommon thing as it turns out). 

    So in the west we would separate the following rights in any commons.
    1) Usus, 2) Fructus, 3) ‘Mancipo’, 4) Abusus

    HOW DO I RECONCILE USUFRUCTUS
    These are all just properties of contract. Propertarianism does not allow for incalculable statements of any kind since it is non-operational, undecideable, and therefore this allows for involuntary transfer – and therefore any contractual commons must possess an enumerated set of shareholders, with specifically articulated rights. 

    I can conceive no conditions under which Abusus – destruction of land (pollution) – can exist as a declared right by any shareholders.

    Basic argument is this: those who defend the land own the land, and allocate Usus, Fructus, and Mancipio to fellow shareholders, but never Abusus.

    Now I am pretty sure I know all the directions anyone could run with this but I am confident I can cover all objections.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev

  • Usufructs Under Propertarianism

    QUESTION: Curt Doolittle, how do you reconcile usufructs with Propertarianism?

    ANSWER:  Just for everyone’s benefit, lets understand what these things mean:

    DEFINITIONS 

    – Commons (common ownership) – where the three rights of ownership are held by more than one individual: 

    1 – Usus (use) The right to use or enjoy a commons, directly and without altering it. (Walking in a Park)

    2 – Fructus (the fruits of) is the right to derive profit from a commons. (Selling the blueberries you have grown in the park).

    3 – Abusus (abuse), the right to transfer, consume, or destroy. (Selling off a piece of the park, or building a home on it. So Abusus consists of two categories of rights
    ……(a) Right of transfer. (Emancipation) or ‘Mancipio’,
    ……(b) Right to consume or destroy, or ‘Abusus’.

    – Ownership: (monopoly) Possession of all three rights determines ownership.

    USUFRUCTUS
    The right to use and bear the fruits of some asset without the right to transfer, consume, or destroy it. 

    Usufruct is technically how land is treated in almost all civilizations: land is a commons distributed via some set of property rights or other (including none), and some set of limited ownership rights are transferred to individuals. 

    Under anglo saxon and current property rights I have the right also to transfer, even if I do not possess the right to destroy or consume. (ie: pollute). 

    So while Abusus means an abuse of the commons (Privatization), in the west the right of transfer is separate from the right of privatization, for example just as bitcoin is a fractional asset (divisible), in our western civilization, land is also a allocated as a fractional (divisible) asset. (A fairly uncommon thing as it turns out). 

    So in the west we would separate the following rights in any commons.
    1) Usus, 2) Fructus, 3) ‘Mancipo’, 4) Abusus

    HOW DO I RECONCILE USUFRUCTUS
    These are all just properties of contract. Propertarianism does not allow for incalculable statements of any kind since it is non-operational, undecideable, and therefore this allows for involuntary transfer – and therefore any contractual commons must possess an enumerated set of shareholders, with specifically articulated rights. 

    I can conceive no conditions under which Abusus – destruction of land (pollution) – can exist as a declared right by any shareholders.

    Basic argument is this: those who defend the land own the land, and allocate Usus, Fructus, and Mancipio to fellow shareholders, but never Abusus.

    Now I am pretty sure I know all the directions anyone could run with this but I am confident I can cover all objections.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev

  • Answer by @curtdoolittle to Is there any society in the world that doesn’t have

    Answer by @curtdoolittle to Is there any society in the world that doesn’t have the concept of private property? http://qr.ae/D40Ot

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-29 07:38:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/527363901957353473

  • WHAT ABOUT THE BLEEDING HEARTS? That begs the question: are the bleeding heart l

    WHAT ABOUT THE BLEEDING HEARTS?

    That begs the question: are the bleeding heart libertarians moral or immoral?

    Or said correctly: (a) do they intuit and prefer an objectively moral society, and (b) would their vision produce via institutions a moral or immoral society? (c) And would this society produce sufficient morality to produce liberty? (d)Or would it produce increased or decreased demand for authority? (e) Are they creators of immorality, or are they vectors for lies or not?

    I think that they are an interesting contrast against immoral libertines.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 08:14:00 UTC

  • I understand the western moral man: he must have moral authority to coerce other

    I understand the western moral man: he must have moral authority to coerce others into moral behavior.

    He will not coerce others into any behavior without moral authority.

    As such, we merely needed to give western man moral authority to act to coerce the immoral, in order to produce the true, the good, and the beautiful.

    Because unlike scriptural or totalitarian civilizations, our western philosophy is not written down in positive form. It is written only in criticisms of the results of our unwritten behaviors and traditions.

    That is why we had to write it down in aristocratic egalitarianism, Propertarianism and testimonial truth.

    To give moral men moral authority to punish the wicked until they are no longer wicked, or the flee, or they die.

    Truth is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 04:04:00 UTC

  • “Even if the whole world is telling you to move , plant yourself beside the rive

    –“Even if the whole world is telling you to move , plant yourself beside the river of truth and say, “No. You move.”– Matthew Ross Funk

    Create Wealth. Speak the Truth. Punish the wicked. Never surrender. Show no mercy, give no quarter. Defeat your enemy completely. And if needed, kill them all and let god sort it out.

    Excellence: The True, The Good, The Beautiful.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-28 02:15:00 UTC

  • In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard asserts that blackmail is ethical and deducib

    In the Ethics of Liberty, Rothbard asserts that blackmail is ethical and deducible from property rights.

    What is the Propertarian view of blackmail?

    —-

    http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/sixteen.asp

    “As in all voluntary exchanges, both parties benefit from such an exchange: Smith receives money, and Jones obtains the service of Smith’s not disseminating information about him which Jones does not wish to see others possess. The right to blackmail is deducible from the general property right in one’s person and knowledge and the right to disseminate or not disseminate that knowledge. How can the right to blackmail be denied?”

    Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-27 09:01:00 UTC

  • I live and work for my kin. I agree only to not harm you and your kin. Some of u

    I live and work for my kin. I agree only to not harm you and your kin.

    Some of us cooperate in society so that your family and my family can cooperate instead of conflict. But the purpose of my life, the purpose of my labor, the purpose of my production – my purpose, is for my family alone, and is not to support others, but to not to harm them while helping my family. Society is merely a utilitarian function that allows my family to prosper. The attempt to steal from me and my family for ‘society’ just means stealing from me to give to my genetic competitors.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-10-26 11:31:00 UTC