Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • Liberty Is Not A Product of Permission, But Of Choice

    [W]ithout states how is liberty enforced? It’s enforced aristocratically: by violence under the ternary logic of cooperation: Null-violence, 0-boycott, 1-cooperation. If another individual desires property rights we grant them to one another in exchange for fighting to preserve those rights from all comers. *We grant that right regardless of state, country, nation, or boundary*. That is the origin and institution of aristocratic egalitarian liberty. Egalitarian meaning: “anyone who is willing to fight for property rights will be given property rights by all others in exchange.” And by contrast, those who do not demand property rights, will not fight for them, shall not be granted them. Everything else is masturbatory begging for permission by slaves. [Y]ou cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.

    COMMENTS Curt Doolittle (Putting violence back into liberty one paragraph at a time.) Lee C Waaks If by violence, you mean private defense agencies armed with a can of whoop ass, I am all for it. Adrian Nielsen There can still be an institution that engages in violence but not a state. The problem with the state: social contract. Only pacifist libertarians are against violence. Except for them, violence within liberty is not a novel idea. Darcy Neal Donnelly How do you defend you life (property) against a mosquito (parasite) or a pack of wolves (predators)? Do you beg or do you engage to the death? Curt Doolittle How have we done it in history? Militia

  • Come Home To Aristocratic Egalitarianism – Leave The Ghetto

    [I]’m an aristocratic egalitarian. I am willing to grant full spectrum Propertarian property rights to all who are equally willing to fight for it in word and deed to the best of their ability. That is the ancient source of liberty: the aristocratic egalitarianism of the indo-europeans. Libertarians from the Rothbardian movement are largely a collection of ‘pussy-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’, ‘stupid-tarians’, ‘aspie-tarians’, ‘libertines’, and ‘dishonest-cheat-itarians’ who can be divided into two camps: those fooled by obscurantism, and those who are naturally liars, cheats, and dishonest. Ditch ghetto libertarianism as the immoral dishonest scheme that it is. Come home to aristocratic egalitarianism. Take liberty by force, for moral reasons, rather than beg for it for immoral reasons.

  • Come Home To Aristocratic Egalitarianism – Leave The Ghetto

    [I]’m an aristocratic egalitarian. I am willing to grant full spectrum Propertarian property rights to all who are equally willing to fight for it in word and deed to the best of their ability. That is the ancient source of liberty: the aristocratic egalitarianism of the indo-europeans. Libertarians from the Rothbardian movement are largely a collection of ‘pussy-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’, ‘stupid-tarians’, ‘aspie-tarians’, ‘libertines’, and ‘dishonest-cheat-itarians’ who can be divided into two camps: those fooled by obscurantism, and those who are naturally liars, cheats, and dishonest. Ditch ghetto libertarianism as the immoral dishonest scheme that it is. Come home to aristocratic egalitarianism. Take liberty by force, for moral reasons, rather than beg for it for immoral reasons.

  • Under Ternary Logic We Get "Seller Beware"

    –BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)

  • Under Ternary Logic We Get “Seller Beware”

    –BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)

  • Under Ternary Logic We Get "Seller Beware"

    –BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)

  • Under Ternary Logic We Get “Seller Beware”

    –BINARY– Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent) REJECTION (binary 0) Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange. Boycott of all exchanges. Rejection of exchange. CONSENT (binary 1) Restitution via court Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost) Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost) –TERNARY– But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence) VIOLENCE (ternary) Restitution via violence Transfer via violence. Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    COMMENTS William L. Benge If what you argue qualifies — and in my mind it does — then justice is higher logic, which would go far in explaining it’s innateness in human conscience. imo William L. Benge Confined by higher logic, though, how ever would the justices be able to go all willy nilly on us and rule into effect one crazy abberation after another like they love to do? A dilemma. (sarcasm)

  • THE KINSHIP OF PROPERTY RIGHTS –“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of

    THE KINSHIP OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

    –“Aristocratic Egalitarianism Is The Kinship Of Property Rights. He who shall exchange the defense of property with me, I shall treated as my kin.”–

    (I think that’s the most reductive statement that I can make. )

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 11:02:00 UTC

  • THE MORAL DECEPTION OF THE ETHICAL STANDARD OF ‘PSYCHIC BENEFIT’ (worth repeatin

    THE MORAL DECEPTION OF THE ETHICAL STANDARD OF ‘PSYCHIC BENEFIT’

    (worth repeating)

    Rothbardian ethics only require ‘satisfaction’ or ‘psychic benefit’ or ‘voluntary cooperation in absence of the threat of violence. This is acceptable ethical criteria for exchange between states.

    However in-group ethical and moral codes evolved to prohibit free riding and parasitism. Such that the standard of ethical exchange is not ‘psychic’ alone, and therefore tolerates, licenses, and encourages deception; but objective, in that in-group trust requires that exchanges are objectively productive in addition to subjectively voluntary.

    I used to think Rothbard had simply made a mistake. However, it’s pretty hard to think that he was doing something other than trying to justify parasitic ethics as moral.

    Rothbardian ethics are immoral, unethical, parasitic and the reason the liberty movement has failed. Aristocratic Egalitarian (protestant, high trust) ethics are the only ethical scope of constraints that will allow for the formation of a voluntary polity capable of anarchic or private government.

    The total prohibition on free riding. The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of negative externality.

    **Why would one argue for an unethical and immoral scope of ethical constraints unless one was himself an immoral and unethical man?**

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy Of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute.

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 04:01:00 UTC

  • Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE? (ethics) a) Do unto others as you would have done unt

    Q: WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE?

    (ethics)

    a) Do unto others as you would have done unto you. VS Do not to others that which you would not have done to you.

    b) Freedom to do what one wishes as long as he harms no other. VS Freedom from constraint by others on what one can do as long as he harms no other.

    c) An in-group requirement for production. VS An in-group prohibition on free riding.

    d) The requirement for fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of externalities. VS The prohibition on criminal, unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions.

    e) Requirement for mutually beneficial cooperation VS Prohibition on parasitism.

    ANSWER? (‘Cmon. You can do it. Be brave.) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-27 03:42:00 UTC