Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • If I am correct, then there are no moral arguments usable in politics any longer

    If I am correct, then there are no moral arguments usable in politics any longer – only propertarian descriptions of wants and offers. No new laws, only contracts.

    The lying and framing and loading is done.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-28 12:46:00 UTC

  • ALTERNATIVES TO PROPERTARIANISM —“I’m interested in application and other meth

    ALTERNATIVES TO PROPERTARIANISM

    —“I’m interested in application and other methods that purport to arrive at ‘legitimate’ conclusions that are either orthogonal or nearly synonymous but methodically separate from propertarianism. For example, Popper may have advocated CR but there is plenty left to be said about psychoanalysis or metaphysics or philosophy of mind that is not derived through its application…..Propertarianism may be one tool but how many tools are in the box? And how many boxes are there?”—

    Curt Doolittle

    I don’t deal with “legitimate” in other than legal terms, because I don’t know what that means in other than legal terms. Instead I deal with moral necessity. MEANING can be achieved through whatever devices we can creatively invent and apply. But I am not solving a problem of meaning (it is infinitely recursive) I am solving a problem of ethics, law, and politics: using language that must be rationally calculable (not open to loading and framing) independent of meaning. And as such, expressly NOT one of meaning. In Propertarianism I operate with the principle that cooperation requires prevention of parasitism, and that every theft (involuntary transfer) is a lost opportunity for exchange (production). As far as I know this the only universally ethical statement because ethics must be reducible to cooperation to have any logical content (meaning). This is not rationalism but science, since this is what we demonstrate no matter how primitive or advanced the society. We just prohibit more or less parasitism, and use more or less government depending upon our level of parasitism.

    So as far as I know cooperation can be represented by a formal grammar, which is an increase in the precision of the formal grammar of institutions. And all moral and immoral operations can be stated in this grammar. (This is what I suspect Mises was trying to get at.)

    But that doesn’t tell us anything other than how to make contracts and resolve conflicts. It doesn’t help us understand that women and men value states of affairs differently, and that they react positively and negatively (with joy or sorrow) to different states of affairs. And that we make compromises for in pursuit of a Nash equilibrium in everything we do, leaving all of us more satisfied than any other possible condition, while less satisfied that the condition we aspire to.

    It is the reality of this equilibrium that causes us our disappointments, and the fact that the genetic lottery aggressively makes you a loser as you vary negatively from the norm.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-28 09:08:00 UTC

  • WITH PROPERTARIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS…. …universal standing, the common (polycen

    WITH PROPERTARIAN PROPERTY RIGHTS….

    …universal standing, the common (polycentric) law, shareholder dividends (what we think of as direct redistribution, but is constructed as a dividend), what policy is there for us to advocate? If we can’t justify stealing from one another by force of law then what can we try to do, without majority rule?

    Well, a lot of commons, a lot of contracts, but no thefts. Propertarianism leads us to contractual government. We separate the law, from our contracts. Our law remains constant but we construct voluntary contracts for whatever we need to. Contracts expire, have terms and conditions, and laws do not.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-27 02:20:00 UTC

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If The Normative Commons Is Common (Shareholder) Property

    [S]o, under freedom of speech, libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you? So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art? All of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in free speech. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If The Normative Commons Is Common (Shareholder) Property

    [S]o, under freedom of speech, libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you? So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art? All of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in free speech. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • WE CAN PREVENT LIES PRETTY EASILY IF THE NORMATIVE COMMONS IS COMMON PROPERTY. S

    WE CAN PREVENT LIES PRETTY EASILY IF THE NORMATIVE COMMONS IS COMMON PROPERTY.

    So libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you, I ‘m sure. So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art, all of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in politics law and commerce.

    It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons?

    Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position).

    Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull.

    Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences?

    THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 10:32:00 UTC

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If the Normative Commons is Common Property

    [S]o libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you, I ‘m sure. So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art, all of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in politics law and commerce. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • We Can Prevent Lies Easily If the Normative Commons is Common Property

    [S]o libel, slander, defamation, are acceptable to you, I ‘m sure. So are Keynesian economics, Marxism upon which it is based, Freudian Psychology, Cantor’s sets, Mises’ Praxeology, Rothbard’s Ethics, The Frankfurt School, Feminism (feminist socialism), Boasian Pseudo-Anthropology, Postmodernism (the attack on truth), the marxist attack on education, the marxist attack on art, all of which were constructed of pseudoscientific arguments and all of which were permissible under free speech, but none of which would have been possible if individuals possessed the right of standing to require truth in politics law and commerce. It is ok I suspect to pollute the physical commons but not the normative commons? Do you have some evidence that such constraints place such limits on progress rather than improve progress? Or even a rational argument to demonstrate why (because you can’t, which is Bridgman’s position). Calling a woman a whore under anglo saxon law was equivalent to attempted murder that exposed the skull. Words have consequences. Why would some people prefer that words NOT have consequences unless they feared being held accountable for their consequences? THE PEOPLE WHO TAUGHT US TO LIE

  • FREEDOM, LIKE PROPERTY, IS CREATED BY VIOLENCE TO DENY OTHERS FROM POWER —“It

    FREEDOM, LIKE PROPERTY, IS CREATED BY VIOLENCE TO DENY OTHERS FROM POWER

    —“It is one thing to use violence to obtain power. It is quite another thing to use violence to deny anyone and everyone power.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-25 05:15:00 UTC

  • SNIPPETS OF OATHS (truth, property, insurance : aristocracy) Speak the truth, ev

    SNIPPETS OF OATHS

    (truth, property, insurance : aristocracy)

    Speak the truth, even if it leads to your death.

    Take not that wasn’t justly paid for.

    Safeguard the helpless.

    Punish the wicked.

    Virtue knows no convenience and apology,

    Only duty, and celebration or mourning.

    Nobility is a choice.

    Choose.

    .

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-24 03:23:00 UTC