Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • THE SILVER RULE IS ARISTOCRATIC (TRUE), THE GOLEN RULE IS SOCIALIST (FALSE) Chri

    THE SILVER RULE IS ARISTOCRATIC (TRUE), THE GOLEN RULE IS SOCIALIST (FALSE)

    Christianity has it backwards you know. The golden rule is stated from a slave’s perspective: “do to others as you would have done to you”. This implies equality that can never exist except among the destitute. It is also not very useful for complex societies.

    The anglo saxon version is the correct one: “never do to others that which you would not have done to you.” (AEthelbert).

    I cannot know or achieve equality. I can never know what to do. I can however, know what NOT to do.

    This is true for any theoretical construct.

    The golden rule is false, and the silver rule is true, for these reasons.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-04 11:14:00 UTC

  • ***Natural elites MUST organize to construct property rights. It is impossible t

    ***Natural elites MUST organize to construct property rights. It is impossible to POSSESS PROPERTY RIGHTS unless one organizes to construct and protect them.***

    Source date (UTC): 2014-03-03 08:35:00 UTC

  • THE LOGIC OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY INVERTED Instead of defining liberty as a stat

    THE LOGIC OF LIBERTY AND PROPERTY INVERTED

    Instead of defining liberty as a statement of victimhood – as rebellion by the weak: rights to property, we can state liberty as a positive – assertions by the strong: rights if exclusion and prohibitions on parasitism.

    NECESSARY RIGHTS

    1) Right of Private Property (right of exclusion from use)

    2) Right of Boycott (right of exclusion from trade)

    3) Right of Secession (right of exclusion from governance)

    Unless you have these three rights of exclusion, you are not free. You merely have permission.

    All rights are rights of exclusion. A fact which is missing from the logic of ethics.

    Freedom is the right to exclude, and that exclusion is what makes voluntary cooperation the only possible moral action we can take.

    By exclusion we boycott cooperation with those who do not engage in equally moral suppression of free riding.

    By the promise of violence we insure our boycott.

    This is the logic of aristocracy vs the logic of bourgeoisie and proletarian.

    The weak beg. The strong demand.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-27 08:12:00 UTC

  • MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE It may seem that moral statements are subjective – but it

    MORALITY IS OBJECTIVE

    It may seem that moral statements are subjective – but it only seems that way.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-26 16:31:00 UTC

  • WHAT DO WE VIOLATE? –“…I’ve come to think of violence as amoral. The rapist,

    WHAT DO WE VIOLATE?

    –“…I’ve come to think of violence as amoral. The rapist, and the victim who kills him in self defense… one is immoral, the other moral. Nothing to do with the violence itself, but the violation of rights.”–

    One can produce property without rights — all living creatures do.

    But one cannot produce a right except via contractual exchange.

    So then, do property rights have any meaning outside of the context of a state or polity with whom one ostensibly holds a contract?

    What is the point of using this term “rights”? Its meaningless except in the context of some contract or other – a contract libertarians would almost always refuse to enter.

    You create your property by your own actions. If people try to appropriate you property against your wishes, then that is not a violation of your magical rights – its just an attack against your property. Period.

    In fact, the only reason to define morality any differently is to logically excuse parasitism.

    Then the only limit to your property is your own parasitism : free riding on others who produce benefits that you consume but that you fail to pay for.

    We need no rights whatsoever. We need only recognize property is the result of our actions. Nothing more.

    All platonism is false.

    We are supposed to be the smart people. We should try to demonstrate it. Libertarian shouldn’t mean “stupid”. Too often it does.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-16 11:14:00 UTC

  • VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE NOT A VICE **If you will not fight for property rights, you

    VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE NOT A VICE

    **If you will not fight for property rights, you have not earned those rights in exchange from those who DO fight for them. Instead, you’re just another beggar trying to get them at a discount. Just another free rider on the backs of others. Just another parasite.**

    The source of liberty is the organize use of violence to suppress criminal, unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial behavior.

    Violence is a virtue, not a vice.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-02-16 04:21:00 UTC

  • Definition: "Ghetto Ethics"

    [G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.

  • Definition: “Ghetto Ethics”

    [G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.

  • Definition: "Ghetto Ethics"

    [G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.

  • Definition: “Ghetto Ethics”

    [G]hetto Ethics: quite literally, the ethics of the medieval urban ghetto. As a ‘state within a state’ residents of the ghetto can conduct exchange as if they are state actors by relying upon high trust exchange in-group, while using low trust exchange out-group. However, in any polity, each of us cannot act as a ‘state’ by applying low trust with some and high trust with others because the net result is a near universally low trust society for the vast majority. In such an environment demand for the state and its interventions as a proxy for trust remains high, since low trust is by definition the use of cunning and deception to obtain discounts and premiums that the opposite party would not tolerate willingly. In other words, low trust ethics are parasitic, and impose high transaction costs on the population. [T]he underlying point I’m making is the absurdity of using the model of a state within a state to advocate for a stateless society. In that lens the entire rothbardian project is… well, absurdly illogical. Laughable even. Aristocratic egalitarianism (the protestant ethic) suppresses all cheating such that demand for the state is low because transaction costs and conflicts are minimized, while the velocity of production and exchange is high.