Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Any system of decidability that is not explicitly right will, by increment, evol

    Any system of decidability that is not explicitly right will, by increment, evolve into explicitly left, fully discretionary, and fully incalculable.

    Natural law is explicitly right, and non-discretionary, and fully calculable.

    In this sense I see religion as having the permission of the Sovereignty and the Court, but that is all. Religion does not get a pass on lying.

    Via-negativa removes falsehoods that allow us to more cost effectively discover a value system – especially by avoiding those that will fail, and those that are predatory.

    In other words, once you have surpassed human scale it is more beneficial to use via-negativa and markets than via-positiva and concentration of capital.

    Just as we need multiple languages to talk to multiple layers of ability (classes), and just as we need multiple states to serve the interests of multiple layers of tribes; and just as we need multiple sciences to break the world into parts that we can disassemble; and just as we need multiple economies (military (slave), commons (serf), union(unskilled labor), market (producers), and finance (gamblers), we need multiple NARRATIVES just as we always have: the religious for the weak, the philosophical for the able, and the heroic for the superior.

    Those narratives already exist. The problem is thinking Your’re everyone (democracy and equality) rather than the member of a class.

    The universe may be beyond human scale, but the scope of action available to humans of different ability varies dramatically from those who can barely care for themselves, to those that can care for others, to those that can manage others, to those that can organize others, to those that can organize many, to those that can advocate for as many as they can serve.

    Choose the tool that serves the scale that is possible for you.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-06 00:16:00 UTC

  • Um. we are supposed to be smart people. There is no law of war. there are on the

    Um. we are supposed to be smart people. There is no law of war. there are on the other hand agreements. And there are international agreements. And almost without exception international agreements rely upon natural law (non-provocation). Spain is violating the principle of non-provocation, and violating the principle of natural law, where natural law is the method of decidabilty we use in international agreements, the purpose of which is to ensure non-provocation, and therefore a reduction of war. Spain is attempting to reclaim Gibraltar but it is (as most weak nations do) a bit of theatre for the voters and nothing more. The people of Gibraltar are british citizens, they desire to be (who wouldn’t), the territory is British by long tradition and mutual agreement, and britan could eradicate the entirety of the spanish navy, airforce and army as a training exercise.

    So lets be the smart people. Spain violated britan’s territorial waters in an effort to defend the pride of the voters.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-05 22:33:00 UTC

  • ON FAITH(RELIGION) VS TRUTH(LAW) An Open Letter To Traditionalists (from elsewhe

    ON FAITH(RELIGION) VS TRUTH(LAW)

    An Open Letter To Traditionalists

    (from elsewhere)(important)

    1) I was raised a catholic, and identify with the pre-vatican ii church. I consider vatican ii a disaster. I consider the chair of st peter empty. I consider the current pope a false pope.

    2) I write for an audience in the language that they can understand. It does not mean I cannot write for different audiences, in their languages – languages that they will understand. The problem in talking to traditionalists is one that is common, and we just saw in the debate between Jordan Peterson and Sam Harris: the difference between conflationary, and coherent truth that combines the good, spirit, literature, and meaning, with the true regardless of existential limits, – and deflationary, descriptive truth within existential limits and free of judgements spirit, literature, and goodness. However, I must explain the importance of that difference.

    2) My understanding is that the spiritual experience is necessary and that the church provided it. That this experience can be provided to many by Ritual(Repetition), by Action-Discipline (Stoicism), by Disconnected Mental Discipline(Mindfulness) and by Prayer and Contemplation (language). That the church and temple experience is necessary for the experience and training in sacredness (emotional security). That the literary experience is necessary for our envisioning of possibilities(Intellectual security). That the scientific experience is necessary for the cooperation of men in transforming the universe for our use (practical security). And that the juridical experience is necessary for the resolution of our disputes – (security of life, property, family and society). And that the military experience is necessary for all security – particularly for men. And that in the west, we developed all of these languages and traditions to provide for all those needs.

    3) I specialize in Action: the practical (scientific), Juridical (Life and Property), and Military (civilization itself). I do not specialize Experience: in the spiritual, the sacred, or the literary. There are reasons for this division of specialization. They are good reasons: competition keeps us free of corruption of spirit, sacred, and literary that we have seen in some civilizations, and the corruption of science, justice, and violence in other civilizations …. and that we have seen in christian civilization since the lies of Boaz, Freud, Marx, and Frankfurt, and the lies of the French and the Postmodernists who tried to recreate a pseudo-scientific religion, were industrialized by mainstream media for the profit of business, finance, academy, politician and bureaucracy at the expense of soul, individual, family, civilization, law, and religion so carefully constructed by the church over millennia. So I work at deconflating the experiential and the actionable because the conflation of the experiential and the actionable, the good and the true, the ideal and the possible, were the means by which our church and our civilization was undermined – by intent, and continues to this day.

    This is a more technical way of saying that faith teaches the golden rule, and law the silver rule.

    4) There are many degrees of decidability. Between one feeling and another. Between a preference and another. Between one parable and another. Between that which is reasonable (Understandable) and another. Between that which is rational (non contradictory) and another. Between that which is more correspondent with reality and that which is less so. Between that which is existentially possible (operational) and that which is not. Between that which is economically possible (tolerable) and that which is not. Between that which is voluntary and that which is not. Between that which produces beneficial unintended consequences, and that which does not.

    But principally, we divide these methods into Spiritual, Mythical, literary, traditional, moral, reasonable, rational, logical, empirical, and scientific. When we have a great deal of information we may use the scientific. When we are highly uncertain, we rely on the moral, traditional literary, mythical, and spiritual. The more information we possess the more reason (calculation), the less we possess the more intuition (spirit).

    We can identify an attempt at deception when a question may be answered by use of a method of decidability of greater precision because we have the information necessary to use that method of greater precision. Or when one attempts to use a method of more precise decidability, yet we lack the information to apply that method of decidability. We can create frauds either way.

    But we are mere mortals, we vary in ability, in education, in experience, and in mastery.

    This is a more technical way of saying that the world of the spirit belongs to God (Faith and Religion), and the world of action belongs to Caesar (Science and Law).

    5) So I teach ‘convergence’ -and that is, that we must – as humans – practice the spiritual, literary, conflationary, and meaningful to cooperate, and we must practice the actionable, descriptive, deflationary, and ‘true’ to resolve conflicts.

    And so I leave the ‘good’ for those who conflate, and I practice the ‘true’ for those of us, who, unfortunately, must resolve conflicts between people – provide restitution if possible, punishment if not, and death if necessary. And it is this convergence and competition that keeps the faith and the law uncorrupted. And it is the conflation of faith and law that corrupts both.

    This is a more technical way of saying that some of you wish to sit in safety at the right and hand of god, to do what might be done to create good: inform and advice. Some of us sit at the left and of god, to do what must be done: judge and punish, to end and prevent bad. Between possible goods and certain bads, we prevent each other’s corruption and do what Christendom has done best: build a world that the rest is in envy of.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-31 21:37:00 UTC

  • compassion has nothing to do with either possibility or measurement. Instead, it

    compassion has nothing to do with either possibility or measurement. Instead, it’s intellectual laziness, status seeking, and virtue signaling.

    Regarding regulation. Unless you grasp the scale of the cost of compliance vs the returns on that compliance you are again making judgement out of intellectual laziness, and pseudo-morality rather than the science. While it may be one thing to punish the best dog owners whose dogs are fully trained because of those whose dogs require leashes, it is quite another to impose vast costs and the highest taxes on business and industry. While Foreign Affairs has traditionally been fairly conservative, the article you reference cherrypicks the regulatory nightmare of the EU where business is not growing, vs the remainder of the world where growth is continuing, regulation is non existent and corruption is rife.

    Why is it that ignorant people feel their opinions are anything but the fantastic impulses of the uneducated, uninformed, and unskillled implanted in them by critical theory and the ignorance of organizations and politiies at large scales?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 05:26:00 UTC

  • Violence has and always will provide decidability. We have tried so desperately

    Violence has and always will provide decidability. We have tried so desperately to accommodate women in government – itself an act of violence – despite their zero value in the exercise of violence.

    Accommodating women’s weakness is not the same as changing the predominance of violence whatsoever. Accommodating the weak, the solipsistic, and the psychotic character of women has been a luxury good. But empirically speaking it has caused the suicide of our civilization, and its vulnerability to invasion, propaganda, and deceit.

    Women have but one power: disapproval. And that power exists only so long as men will tolerate it. And men will tolerate it only so long as it is useful.

    Women have merely replaced the truth of violence, with lying about it in all walks of life.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 08:07:00 UTC

  • You Don’t Have it in the First Place

    YOU DON”T HAVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. 😉 Great questions. —1) From where does a polity gain more rights or powers under Natural Law than the individual has in the first place?— a) a right is a demand upon others. one does not intrinsically possess rights, one intrinsically requires them. Just as one does not intrinsically possess property he acquires it. You can REQUIRE, and DEMAND others not impose costs upon your possessions, but you cannot possess property in fact, or property rights in fact, without a contract for those rights in some form, and a polity or institution to insure them on your behalf, and you on theirs. Else we would not have this discussion. b) natural law provides decidability in matters of conflict regardless of the difference in opinions of the individuals in that conflict. c) using decidability one can judicially discover and outlaw the new means of parasitism, and the new forms of property, that we consistently invent. d) so regardless of initial presumptions the scope of our property rights can increase indefinitely under natural law regardless of the opinions of others (or ourselves). Ergo, under natural law, no matter what we expend our efforts and resources upon, we are able to convert it into property (exclusion of others from its use, taking, or consumption), as long as we do so without violating the exclusion others ask of us via reciprocity. —“2) How is productivity quantified in your system of validation for voluntary agreements and their externalities?”— a) preamble: i) possessions provide us with agency. ii) cooperation provides us with multipliers upon our agency. iii) it appears that we cannot compete (survive) without the agency provided by the transformation of personally insured possessions into cooperatively insured property. iv) And it is difficult to compete and survive without the agency provided by external cooperation (cooperation at scale via markets). v) ergo we must cooperate to produce property rights that provide us with agency, multipliers, and greater multipliers of the market. vi) and we must possess a means of decidability upon the scope of property to be insured (a property right), before we can cooperatively insure property. b) conversely, i) humans retaliate against impositions of costs upon the investments they have made, in order to obtain an interest in some good, service, information, or association. ii) humans retaliate more severely than the original cost imposed upon them as a means of dissuading future such violations. iii) we evolved these behaviors precisely because of the necessity of cooperation in our survival, competition, and prospering, in relation to nature and the competition of other groups. iv) and we evolved the institutions of property, property rights, and law, to prevent cycles of retaliation (feuds) that were endemic to human groups prior to the invention of the prevention of retaliation by the institutions of property, property rights, and law. The law – our first ‘commons’ – evolved to preserve cooperation and the benefits of cooperation. v) and humans organize to embrace familial generosity, in-group reciprocity, and out group cooperation, competition, or war, by the importance of cooperation in each of those domains of action. c) one cannot quantify changes in state only qualify changes in state – or we cannot yet do so with the instrumentation we have available to us today. And while we can qualify changes in state, we do not need to qualify, positive changes in state. We need only know if there have been negative changes in state – whether someone will retaliate. And those changes in state are limited to property in toto (demonstrated property – property in fact). That which we have obtained through homesteading, transformation of possessions, or exchange. And to prevent retaliation, we must limit ourselves to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges limited to productive externalities. d) because when we limit ourselves as such, no possible retaliation can be instigated. cooperation is preserved. the fruits of cooperation are preserved: possessions, property, property rights, and markets. e) we do not choose the scope of property – others choose to invest their energies in obtaining interests by bringing changes in state of the universe into being through their actions. This interest serves to exclude you from imposition of costs upon that interest. And they choose to retaliate against impositions of costs upon them. So while we express via-positiva our necessity of a commons of property rights, the via negativa restatement of that demand, is that we seek to preserve cooperation and its fruits, by violating the terms of cooperation: the imposition of costs. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • You Don’t Have it in the First Place

    YOU DON”T HAVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. 😉 Great questions. —1) From where does a polity gain more rights or powers under Natural Law than the individual has in the first place?— a) a right is a demand upon others. one does not intrinsically possess rights, one intrinsically requires them. Just as one does not intrinsically possess property he acquires it. You can REQUIRE, and DEMAND others not impose costs upon your possessions, but you cannot possess property in fact, or property rights in fact, without a contract for those rights in some form, and a polity or institution to insure them on your behalf, and you on theirs. Else we would not have this discussion. b) natural law provides decidability in matters of conflict regardless of the difference in opinions of the individuals in that conflict. c) using decidability one can judicially discover and outlaw the new means of parasitism, and the new forms of property, that we consistently invent. d) so regardless of initial presumptions the scope of our property rights can increase indefinitely under natural law regardless of the opinions of others (or ourselves). Ergo, under natural law, no matter what we expend our efforts and resources upon, we are able to convert it into property (exclusion of others from its use, taking, or consumption), as long as we do so without violating the exclusion others ask of us via reciprocity. —“2) How is productivity quantified in your system of validation for voluntary agreements and their externalities?”— a) preamble: i) possessions provide us with agency. ii) cooperation provides us with multipliers upon our agency. iii) it appears that we cannot compete (survive) without the agency provided by the transformation of personally insured possessions into cooperatively insured property. iv) And it is difficult to compete and survive without the agency provided by external cooperation (cooperation at scale via markets). v) ergo we must cooperate to produce property rights that provide us with agency, multipliers, and greater multipliers of the market. vi) and we must possess a means of decidability upon the scope of property to be insured (a property right), before we can cooperatively insure property. b) conversely, i) humans retaliate against impositions of costs upon the investments they have made, in order to obtain an interest in some good, service, information, or association. ii) humans retaliate more severely than the original cost imposed upon them as a means of dissuading future such violations. iii) we evolved these behaviors precisely because of the necessity of cooperation in our survival, competition, and prospering, in relation to nature and the competition of other groups. iv) and we evolved the institutions of property, property rights, and law, to prevent cycles of retaliation (feuds) that were endemic to human groups prior to the invention of the prevention of retaliation by the institutions of property, property rights, and law. The law – our first ‘commons’ – evolved to preserve cooperation and the benefits of cooperation. v) and humans organize to embrace familial generosity, in-group reciprocity, and out group cooperation, competition, or war, by the importance of cooperation in each of those domains of action. c) one cannot quantify changes in state only qualify changes in state – or we cannot yet do so with the instrumentation we have available to us today. And while we can qualify changes in state, we do not need to qualify, positive changes in state. We need only know if there have been negative changes in state – whether someone will retaliate. And those changes in state are limited to property in toto (demonstrated property – property in fact). That which we have obtained through homesteading, transformation of possessions, or exchange. And to prevent retaliation, we must limit ourselves to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges limited to productive externalities. d) because when we limit ourselves as such, no possible retaliation can be instigated. cooperation is preserved. the fruits of cooperation are preserved: possessions, property, property rights, and markets. e) we do not choose the scope of property – others choose to invest their energies in obtaining interests by bringing changes in state of the universe into being through their actions. This interest serves to exclude you from imposition of costs upon that interest. And they choose to retaliate against impositions of costs upon them. So while we express via-positiva our necessity of a commons of property rights, the via negativa restatement of that demand, is that we seek to preserve cooperation and its fruits, by violating the terms of cooperation: the imposition of costs. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • My Position On The Solution to Healthcare

    (regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare) Dick, Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)? 1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only. 2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it. 3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently. 4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure. 5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.) 6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing. 7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country. My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have. This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands. Cheers.

  • My Position On The Solution to Healthcare

    (regarding the republican failure to reform healthcare) Dick, Are you speaking truthfully, with bias, with wishful thinking, or propagandizing (fictionalizing)? 1 – they (mainstream republicans) thought they could replace it in name only. 2 – the right libertarians and conservatives that were elected to repeal it completely put together enough votes to block it. 3 – Now it will fail economically, and they will allow it to fail, and the right and the mainstream republicans will say ‘told you so’ – and they will solidify the movement of the middle class to the republican party permanently. 4 – The left will (as they intended originally) to propose full nationalization upon failure. 5 – The right will propose a tiered program (extending the two tiered system we have today: medicare and private.) 6 – the uninformed (unaligned) voter will provide marginal voting power to one party or another depending upon the timing. 7 – the outcome then is random, dependent upon the economic mood of the country. My opinion remains, and has been, to keep and expand the subsidy (medicare, medicaid) system for the poor, cover catastrophic health problems fully (for the lower middle and middl) and leave market plans available for the upper middle and upper classes. This three tiered system allows the governments (states) to negotiate price controls for the poor, the middle class to obtain insurance at reasonable prices by eliminating the high cost outliers, and the upper classes to fund research and development as they always have. This is, I am fairly certain, the optimum system that preserves the benefits of the market on one hand, the control of prices across that market on the other, and the ability to create demand for innovative (risky, expensive) services that respond to market demands. Cheers.

  • Virtuous and Ethical Behavior Is Determined by Cost

    Feb 28, 2017 4:14pm (full argument)(read it and weep. lol) —“I can struggle not to cheat on my wife. And still fail. While you can argue it’s better that I at least struggled as opposed to gleefully giving into my hedonism, I still missed the mark concerning virtuous behavior.”— Example of a parlor trick. Here is how to uncover the deception. (it’s a variation on the monty hall problem). In other words a common fraud conducted by suggestion. 1) I have a choice between two options: one that is less costly but produces negative externalities and one that is more costly but produces positive externalities. a) I choose the one that is more costly because of the externalities it produces. (deliberately virtuous/moral) or b) I choose the other that is less costly regardless of the externalities it produces. (immoral) OR 2) I have a choice between one that is less costly but produces positive externalities, and one that is more costly and produces negative externalities. a) I choose the less costly that produces the positive externalities. (coincidentally virtuous) or b) I choose the more costly that produces the negative externalities. (evil/immoral) 1………..DV……I 2………..CV……E Now, we can pretend under the POSITIVE is the full depth of the argument and assume we speak logically. Or we can fully account for the argument, and show that we do not. 3) Two individuals where one has more knowledge than the other. As the person with knowledge, I have the choice of: Virtuous/ethical/moral action with knowledge of the consequences, (ethical) OR I have the choice of unethical/immoral/evil actions with knowledge of the consequences (Unethical) OR I have the choice of taking the appearance of ethical action while producing immoral outcomes. (False Ethical) So in this case we have FALSE POSITIVES. 1……E……U 2……FE….U So the question is, given that an individual can claim he takes ethical action even with unethical designs, and the individual can claim he takes virtuous action, even when it is merely convenience for him (false ethical, and false virtue), the only way to objectively test for virtuous CHARACTER in past and FUTURE is not false virtue or false ethical action, but whether the individual bore a cost in the false virtue, or earned a profit in the false ethical. You see? The fact that an action coincides with the virtuous that DOES cost has no bearing on whether it is virtuous. Any more than an action exporting costs on which you profit is ethical. See? It is the COST and REWARD that tell us whether one acts virtuously and ethically. QED Thus Endeth The Lesson.