Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • “I AM WILLING TO LET YOU HAVE YOUR MORAL CODE, AS LONG AS YOU LET ME HAVE MY MOR

    “I AM WILLING TO LET YOU HAVE YOUR MORAL CODE, AS LONG AS YOU LET ME HAVE MY MORAL CODE”

    But the only way that is physically or logically possible is if we respect each other’s property rights.

    This is the genius of property rights as a social order compared to majority rule government as a social order.

    Property rights make all more complex moral codes possible. Without them no cooperation between peoples with different moral codes is possible.

    This is why democratic government cannot survive heterogeneity – ‘diversity’. People in any democratic body politic must have the same status signals, family structures, metaphysical value judgements, and even similar economic interests.

    Otherwise, majority rules is a means of destroying the market for cooperation inside the body politic, and by consequence, outside the body politic as well.

    Democratic government in any heterogeneous polity must and will lead to economic decay.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-09 17:14:00 UTC

  • “I WILL COOPERATE WITH YOU BUT I WILL NOT SERVE YOU” We can take care of people

    “I WILL COOPERATE WITH YOU BUT I WILL NOT SERVE YOU”

    We can take care of people by cooperating with them, or by serving them. Cooperation is mutually beneficial. Service is purely extractive. Oppression and extraction are exactly the same thing.

    Redistribution against one’s will is simply oppression.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 12:52:00 UTC

  • ON THE HIERARCHY OF ETHICAL MODELS AND ARGUMENTS. HIERARCHY OF ETHICAL SYSTEMS 1

    ON THE HIERARCHY OF ETHICAL MODELS AND ARGUMENTS.

    HIERARCHY OF ETHICAL SYSTEMS

    1) Virtue Ethics (imitation)

    2) Rule Ethics (deontological ethics)

    3) Outcome Ethics (teleological ethics)

    All of us that we describe as functioning humans can imitate the virtuous. As we mature we can understand the value of normative rules. As we gain wisdom and knowledge we can grasp the different outcomes that are produced by nuances. But more importantly, ethics are the list of rules by which we are forgiven for our errors, and lauded for our successes. We will not be chastised as a child for imitating virtue even if we err. We will not be chastised as an adult for following ethical rules, even if we err. We will not be chastised in our late maturity for following teleological ethics even if we err.

    HIERARCHY OF ETHICAL ARGUMENTS

    1) Sentimental

    2) Moral

    3) Rational

    4) Scientific

    5) Economic

    6) Ratio-Scientific (including economics)

    WE HUMANS EXIST IN VARIOUS AGES, with various knowledge, with various cognitive abilities. We must all cooperate given those differences. We must give the young and inexperienced what they can use, and the wizened and aged what they can use. And we must work together with our youth and age to cooperate for mutually beneficial ends.

    FOR ANY POLITICAL MOVEMENT TO SUCCEED it must produce the entire suite of arguments. Because humans can only grasp some maximum level of argument given their abilities and knowledge at any given point. If you wait until all members can argue ratio-scientifically then you will never achieve your political goals. If you argue sentimentally and morally you can never defeat your opponents.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-08 05:00:00 UTC

  • WHY PROPERTARIAN REASONING IS THE ANSWER TO MORAL ARGUMENT. “I work entirely by

    WHY PROPERTARIAN REASONING IS THE ANSWER TO MORAL ARGUMENT.

    “I work entirely by arguing with incentives. And I unload them as much as possible. We may not agree on the experience produced by any action, but the transfers produced by any action exist independently of how we react to them. And incentives are nothing more than values attached to transfers.”

    In other words ALL EMOTIONAL AND MORAL STATEMENTS AND EXPERIENCES can be reduced to statements of the transfer of property, and our differences merely different expectations over the distribution of property rights between the private and the common.

    **Propertarianism is what Praxeology should have been if it was complete.**

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-07 11:36:00 UTC

  • CONCLUSION: BEARING PERSONAL ARMS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF FREEDOM The origin of pr

    CONCLUSION: BEARING PERSONAL ARMS IS THE ONLY SOURCE OF FREEDOM

    The origin of private property rights was as the reward for enfranchisement, and enfranchisement the reward for owning and carrying, and using arms in defense of both private and common property.

    No other civilization developed and held peerage – interpersonal property rights. None. And None other held them.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism is the cultural difference between western civilization and the rest. It is why we have the common law. And we have the common law because of property rights. And we have property rights because ‘citizenship’ meant bearing arms. And nobility meant the right to bear them.

    We can ‘lend’ our violence to the government if we wish, to act on our behalf. A division of labor is good for all of us.

    But when the government ceases to use our violence on our behalf, and instead uses it to violate our hard won, hard kept rights, then we may recall our loan of violence. And we may only do that if we are armed.

    Violence is a virtue. It is the highest virtue. It is the origin of freedom. It is the only origin of freedom.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-01 02:48:00 UTC

  • I dont want to force a libertarian society on you but i will happily do so if yo

    I dont want to force a libertarian society on you but i will happily do so if you force something else upon me.

    There is no virtue is pacifism, tolerance or submission. Violence is the highest virtue and the virtue from which all prosperity must originate.

    There is no freedom without arms

    There is no freedom at a discount.

    Freedom is a form of rule.

    And rule requires rulers.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-27 03:56:00 UTC

  • IF I AM CORRECT, THEN ETHICAL INTUITIONISM IS CORRECT But they authors just didn

    IF I AM CORRECT, THEN ETHICAL INTUITIONISM IS CORRECT

    But they authors just didn’t have Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe to help them. (I did.)

    What Mises, Rothbard and Hoppe didn’t have, was the past twenty years of scientific research to rely upon.

    And the diverse set of ethical intuitions are not diverse at all.

    He he he he… It’s awesome.

    “All rights are reducible to property rights.” True. “All moral and ethical intuitions are reducible to property rights” is true also. The first is a legal statement. The second is a biological one.

    Libertarians figure it out. Not all of it. But they did it.

    I just put the cherry on the topping.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-14 15:43:00 UTC

  • NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE IS NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT (Re-Posted from elsewhere

    http://www.propertarianism.com/defining-propertarianism/THE NON AGGRESSION PRINCIPLE IS NECESSARY BUT INSUFFICIENT

    (Re-Posted from elsewhere for archival purposes.)

    THE NAP IS AN EPISTEMIC TEST

    The NAP is an EPISTEMOLOGICAL TEST. It lets us know what actions are ethical or unethical, moral or immoral, constructive or destructive of a peaceful social order.

    The NAP states only that you do not INITIATE violence -aggression – against others or their property. It does not mean that we do not DEFEND ourselves or property if we or our property is subject to involuntary transfer or damage.

    INSUFFICIENCY

    We do not argue that the NAP is a SUFFICIENT informal institution for a social order. And it does not address formal institutions at all, only limits them. But it is SUFFICIENT test of ethics and morality for political statements in ANY social order. It is sufficient test of ethics and morality necessary for the development of a division of knowledge and labor. And the prosperity that results from a division of knowledge and labor is a universal demonstrated preference of all polities.

    PROPERTY AS A SPECTRUM

    The question that the NAP does not answer, is the definition of property and it’s distribution between the individual and the commons. That is because libertarian ethics does not allow for informal commons, only explicitly stated shareholder agreements as the vehicle for commons, and private property as the only form of property morally extant.

    So the NAP does not expressly state that only private property exists and can exist, in a moral social order, but it is implied, and all libertarians simply assume it’s obvious (but it’s not.)

    COMPACT WITH BROAD EXPLANATORY POWER

    The NAP is an exceptionally good theory because it is COMPACT, has universal explanatory power, is testable and falsifiable both logically and empirically.

    THE DEFINITION OF PROPERTY

    Now, just so that I can help better intellectually arm fellow libertarians, there is a definition of property: “That which people act as if is their property.” We talk about PRIVATE property. And we advocate the reduction of all rights to PRIVATE property rights.

    I’ve enumerated it here under ‘Scope of Property Rights’: http://www.propertarianism.com/defining-propertarianism/

    THE ALLOCATION OF PROPERTY RIGHTS

    So it’s not that we lack a definition of property it’s that the allocation of property between the individual and the commons varies with the family structure that the individual comes from, and the structure of production he comes from, and the moral intuitions that he or she has, which appear to be genetic, and largely correlate gender.

    THE DEFINITION OF LIBERTARIAN

    As for liberty, I think that the definition of libertarian is well established and has finally been empirically established by data from Jonathan Haidt: libertarian is a preference to grant freedom from coercion higher moral status than the other five moral instincts. The left treats harm-care highest, and almost exclusively, and the right treats all six moral values equally.

    That is what libertarians share in common. We simply use different arguments and different institutional solutions to advocate for our desired moral bias.

    ARTICULATING OUR IDEAS

    So neither of these statements helps us a great deal in arguing in FAVOR of libertarianism over some other clam. But they help us in articulating our ideas clearly.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-12 05:16:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIAN MISSION 1) CORRECTION To correct libertarian morality by completing

    LIBERTARIAN MISSION

    1) CORRECTION

    To correct libertarian morality by completing it with propertarian morality necessary and sufficient to preserve a high trust society.

    2) RECONSTRUCTION

    To reconstruct libertarianism relying entirely on ratio – scientific arguments.

    3) REDIRECTION

    To focus libertarian argument on postmodernism rather than socialism, now that we have sufficient evidence to do so.

    4) ENFRANCHISEMENT

    To provide a rational, scientific language of sufficient scope and depth to unite conservatives and libertarians using propertarian reasoning to explain libertarian formal institutions and conservative (aristocratic) informal institutions (norms), as mutually dependent sets of institutions.

    5) JUSTIFICATION

    To restore violence as the first, necessary, and sufficient requirement for creation and persistence of the institution and of property, and the freedom and liberty that result from it.

    6) RESULT

    To provide a means for a minority of those of us who prefer property rights, freedom to act and liberty from constraint to obtain and persist all, and to justify that means as morally necessary, obligatory, and just.

    The bourgeoise are free riders: thieves. Aristocracy is earned. It is not a right. It is demanded. It is taken. And it is taken by force if needed.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-09-08 11:39:00 UTC

  • The Necessity, Virtue And Morality Of Organized Violence

    THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY: THE NECESSITY, VIRTUE AND MORALITY OF ORGANIZED VIOLENCE I (we) may not be able to coerce you into accepting freedom – individual monopoly of control over property obtained by voluntary exchange production or homesteading – as a superior form of cooperation to all other forms of cooperation. But you may not coerce me (us) into abandoning freedom as our preferred, committed, required, demanded and threatened form of cooperation. THE SOURCE OF PROPERTY IS VIOLENCE The source of property is the use of violence to create, obtain, and protect it. Only those who performed militial service created private property. Only those who performed militial service obtained private property. Only those who perform militial service will keep private property. A militia is a voluntary alliance of property owners whose common interest is the preservation of private property rights. A militia is not the same as an army, any more than freedom is the same as liberty. You create freedom by using violence. You request or desire liberty from someone else. The purpose of a libertarian government is to create private property through the organized application of violence to create it. And libertarian pacifists and moralists are in fact the reason we are losing it. VIOLENCE IS A VIRTUE. Violence is a virtue not a vice. If all rights are property rights. If property defines morality, then violence to create property is the first moral action upon which all other morality rests. We should encourage the mastery of violence in all men at all times, and the exercise of violence by all men at all times, in the defense of property rights, the highest form of morality that a man can display. Because by acts of violence to preserve property he pays the highest contribution to morality possible. Defense of property does not require words. It requires actions. FREEDOM IS SYNONYMOUS WITH MILITIA The only free people are, and must be, a people whose government is a militia, and whose resolution of disputes over property is decided by judges using the single rule of private property as their criteria for adjudication. A militia is synonymous with enfranchisement. No one else has paid for his or her right of property. They merely free ride on the expenses of others. Therefore, political democracy is synonymous with militial participation. No other meaning is possible. All other attributions are acts of theft by fraud. Militial participation requires no more than the personal use of violence to protect property rights. The use of the militia is to create and preserve property rights. The use of judges is to resolve conflicts without violence. The use of democratic government is not to create laws, but to create physical commons. The use of public intellectuals, is to carry on the public debate over which commons we may choose to invest in, and which not. The use of ‘religion’ and literature is to teach us these necessary and immutable laws of human cooperation so that we never forget them – and by forgetting them lose our freedom. You cannot obtain the right of private property at a discount. It is an extremely costly right to possess. It is an extremely costly right to maintain. Those who attempt to gain freedom – property – at a discount, will obtain an inferior product to those who pay for a better one. And the only currency of freedom -property – is violence. Be armed. Be willing. Be vigilant. And Act. —– Curt Doolittle Kiev, 2013 “Putting violence back into liberty one sentence at a time.”