Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Enfranchising : (a) non property owners, (b) women, (c) others who were not full

    Enfranchising: (a) non property owners, (b) women, (c) others who were not fully integrated into:

    • (i) Christian ethics
    • (ii) Rule of law, natural law, universal standing, universal application, strict construction
    • (iii) the absolute nuclear family as the central unit of reproduction, production, and commons
    • (iv) individual economic responsibility

    without : (d) giving each a new house of parliament/government. The english system of multiple houses created a **market** for the construction of commons between the classes. Creating majoritarian single-house democracy created** majority tyranny**, and put the lowest classes with the largest numbers in control of government and has destroyed western civilizations’ historical dependence upon empiricism in under a century. This required we basically develop propaganda, ideology, and deception in order to rule underclasses by vote. This single decision, made in the euphoria of the proceeds of the industrial revolution, caused the destruction of western civilization.

  • How To Prosecute a Progressive

    HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST) In the western tradition, as a high trust people, we search for, and start from the assumption that the other party errs. These assumptions were originally necessary for military and juridical debate between peers specializing in violence, but evolved to traditional, then institutional, and now normative assumptions on how one should proceed in argument and discourse. But what I have tried to do, is revisit that assumption, and start from the premise that the other person is trying, because of the biases of his genetics, to commit fraud. And that error is often a trivial contributor to differences in assessment and that the various forms of fraud constitute the vast majority of argument. This is quite different from the rather tame victorian or jewish debate between peers, and the traditional western demand that the aristocracy JUDGE. As such my approach is prosecutorial rather than deliberative, since any deliberative stance in which we assume error rather than deception, merely gives the fraud permission to engage in propagandism, and prevents resolution of differences, since in discourse the liar does not admit his lies. So why am I saying this? Because if I prosecute your statement it will be rapidly obvious to the jury, regardless of whether you consent to the outcome or not, that you’re likewise engaged in an act of fraud. However, I’ll construct my argument briefly. First reductively, then causally. Reductively: *Foucault is to Frankfurt as Keynes is to Marx, but it was Marx and Frankfurt that developed the technique of critique by applying Jewish hermeneutic criticism of static scripture and its dysgenic consequences instead of European scientific extension of dynamic, common, natural law and its eugenic consequences.* Now lacking knowledge of my arguments, you assumed too much. Which is normal since it is always a question of the worth of investigating some set of ideas. But that argument is: 1) groups make use of the argumentative technique used by their civilization, and in most if not all cases this is reducible to the argumentative structure of our ancestral laws. 2) our ancestral laws in whatever form incorporated our group evolutionary strategies. 3) we all justify our individual and group evolutionary strategies in no small part because as metaphysical assumptions we are rarely aware of them, and contrary propositions are intuitively immoral (or just wrong). 4) during the enlightenment each culture attempted to express its method of argument, and it’s group evolutionary strategy, as a universal, rather than a particular. 5) every society was wrong in that while the British scientific method was correct its aspirational view of man was false; the french method of moral literary equality was a justificationary method of preserving authority and the moral view of man was false; the german rationalism model was false but the german understanding of man was true, and its prescription (truth telling and defense of it) was true. And the Jewish pseudoscientific pseudorational pseudolegal was designed from its origins as false, polylogical, poly ethical, and parasitic. And the nature of man irrelevant if it can be exploited. Each culture then made use of the technologies other cultures have used, and it is only since the late 1990’s with the combination of computers, cognitive science, medical imaging, and genetic research that we have started to become successful at overthrowing the last, and worst, enlightenment thinkers: the pseudoscientists and deceivers: the cosmopolitans: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand, Rothbard, Strauss, and the legion of others that have conducted a century-long campaign against common, natural, empirical, judge discovered, eugenic law. Once we falsify the pseudoscience in each then those who arose consequentially from the original will fall as well. Yes, Foucault(literary) like Keynes(probabilism) improved upon Frankfurt(pseudoscience, pseudorationalism), and Marx(pseudoscience, pseudoratioalism), but preserved the central theory: creating a straw man and criticizing it, rather than creating a positive argument and justifying it. We criticize science because we do not know its first principles, we justify morality because we do. we must. or sympathetic cooperation would be impossible for us as it is between most apes. Cheers.

  • How To Prosecute a Progressive

    HOW TO PROSECUTE A PROGRESSIVE (LEFTIST) In the western tradition, as a high trust people, we search for, and start from the assumption that the other party errs. These assumptions were originally necessary for military and juridical debate between peers specializing in violence, but evolved to traditional, then institutional, and now normative assumptions on how one should proceed in argument and discourse. But what I have tried to do, is revisit that assumption, and start from the premise that the other person is trying, because of the biases of his genetics, to commit fraud. And that error is often a trivial contributor to differences in assessment and that the various forms of fraud constitute the vast majority of argument. This is quite different from the rather tame victorian or jewish debate between peers, and the traditional western demand that the aristocracy JUDGE. As such my approach is prosecutorial rather than deliberative, since any deliberative stance in which we assume error rather than deception, merely gives the fraud permission to engage in propagandism, and prevents resolution of differences, since in discourse the liar does not admit his lies. So why am I saying this? Because if I prosecute your statement it will be rapidly obvious to the jury, regardless of whether you consent to the outcome or not, that you’re likewise engaged in an act of fraud. However, I’ll construct my argument briefly. First reductively, then causally. Reductively: *Foucault is to Frankfurt as Keynes is to Marx, but it was Marx and Frankfurt that developed the technique of critique by applying Jewish hermeneutic criticism of static scripture and its dysgenic consequences instead of European scientific extension of dynamic, common, natural law and its eugenic consequences.* Now lacking knowledge of my arguments, you assumed too much. Which is normal since it is always a question of the worth of investigating some set of ideas. But that argument is: 1) groups make use of the argumentative technique used by their civilization, and in most if not all cases this is reducible to the argumentative structure of our ancestral laws. 2) our ancestral laws in whatever form incorporated our group evolutionary strategies. 3) we all justify our individual and group evolutionary strategies in no small part because as metaphysical assumptions we are rarely aware of them, and contrary propositions are intuitively immoral (or just wrong). 4) during the enlightenment each culture attempted to express its method of argument, and it’s group evolutionary strategy, as a universal, rather than a particular. 5) every society was wrong in that while the British scientific method was correct its aspirational view of man was false; the french method of moral literary equality was a justificationary method of preserving authority and the moral view of man was false; the german rationalism model was false but the german understanding of man was true, and its prescription (truth telling and defense of it) was true. And the Jewish pseudoscientific pseudorational pseudolegal was designed from its origins as false, polylogical, poly ethical, and parasitic. And the nature of man irrelevant if it can be exploited. Each culture then made use of the technologies other cultures have used, and it is only since the late 1990’s with the combination of computers, cognitive science, medical imaging, and genetic research that we have started to become successful at overthrowing the last, and worst, enlightenment thinkers: the pseudoscientists and deceivers: the cosmopolitans: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School, Rand, Rothbard, Strauss, and the legion of others that have conducted a century-long campaign against common, natural, empirical, judge discovered, eugenic law. Once we falsify the pseudoscience in each then those who arose consequentially from the original will fall as well. Yes, Foucault(literary) like Keynes(probabilism) improved upon Frankfurt(pseudoscience, pseudorationalism), and Marx(pseudoscience, pseudoratioalism), but preserved the central theory: creating a straw man and criticizing it, rather than creating a positive argument and justifying it. We criticize science because we do not know its first principles, we justify morality because we do. we must. or sympathetic cooperation would be impossible for us as it is between most apes. Cheers.

  • Restitution And Punishment Are Every Man’s Price Of Liberty.

    Aug 28, 2016 4:31amEvery Man A Sheriff – I advocate restitution and punishment for the crimes of murder, harm, destruction, theft, fraud (in all its forms), socialization of losses and privatization of commons, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, war, and conquest – Any violation of natural law. – I advocate the death penalty when it is the only restitution possible for the severity of the crime. – I advocate severity, and public execution, enumerating crimes, in order to enforce norm and law through exemplary education. – I advocate regicide just as I advocate war when these are the only choices of restitution open to us. – It is undesirable to take pleasure in taking life, but that is only so that we do not host among us, those whose pleasure in taking life might be a danger to us. Other than contractually – in matters of truth-test – I do not view any man as equal to another, and I view the world as a hierarchy where we make best use of our cognitive abilities and biases. I am, I think correct, in stating that despite our vast differences we can calculate common means to uncommon ends, and live in harmony, if we can engage in cooperation under natural law on the one hand and constantly cull the bottom that cannot engage in cooperation under natural law on the other. But just as some people must advocate for change, some people advocate for production, some people must JUDGE by natural law if we are to LIVE Under natural law. I would judge the assassination of Merkel as judgment for crimes committed. In fact, regicide as a long and successful history of limiting the kind of abuses we see in political orders in modernity. I would judge the assassination of a whole host of leaders – Obama among them – as just punishment and the only restitution possible for his crimes. I would judge that regents should fear the people whenever possible, just as I would judge that those who would find crime easier than production must fear prosecution by those who would not engage in parasitism. It is not my nature to take pleasure in suffering. It is my responsibility to prosecute, perform restitution, and if necessary kill those, who violate the law of nature, under which we prosper, and without which we suffer in poverty, ignorance, disease, mysticism, deceit, and predation. Cheers

  • Restitution And Punishment Are Every Man’s Price Of Liberty.

    Aug 28, 2016 4:31amEvery Man A Sheriff – I advocate restitution and punishment for the crimes of murder, harm, destruction, theft, fraud (in all its forms), socialization of losses and privatization of commons, conspiracy, conversion, invasion, war, and conquest – Any violation of natural law. – I advocate the death penalty when it is the only restitution possible for the severity of the crime. – I advocate severity, and public execution, enumerating crimes, in order to enforce norm and law through exemplary education. – I advocate regicide just as I advocate war when these are the only choices of restitution open to us. – It is undesirable to take pleasure in taking life, but that is only so that we do not host among us, those whose pleasure in taking life might be a danger to us. Other than contractually – in matters of truth-test – I do not view any man as equal to another, and I view the world as a hierarchy where we make best use of our cognitive abilities and biases. I am, I think correct, in stating that despite our vast differences we can calculate common means to uncommon ends, and live in harmony, if we can engage in cooperation under natural law on the one hand and constantly cull the bottom that cannot engage in cooperation under natural law on the other. But just as some people must advocate for change, some people advocate for production, some people must JUDGE by natural law if we are to LIVE Under natural law. I would judge the assassination of Merkel as judgment for crimes committed. In fact, regicide as a long and successful history of limiting the kind of abuses we see in political orders in modernity. I would judge the assassination of a whole host of leaders – Obama among them – as just punishment and the only restitution possible for his crimes. I would judge that regents should fear the people whenever possible, just as I would judge that those who would find crime easier than production must fear prosecution by those who would not engage in parasitism. It is not my nature to take pleasure in suffering. It is my responsibility to prosecute, perform restitution, and if necessary kill those, who violate the law of nature, under which we prosper, and without which we suffer in poverty, ignorance, disease, mysticism, deceit, and predation. Cheers

  • The End of Justificationary APriorism vs Critical Empiricism

    THE END OF APRIORISM VS EMPIRICISM (read it and weep) 😉 PROPOSITIONS 1) All domesticatable animals are domesticatable for five reasons. All undomesticatable animals are undomesticatable for any one of them. 2) All human personalities are highly functional for five or six reasons. All dysfunctional families are dysfunctional for any one of those six reasons. 3) All happy families are happy for the same five or six reasons. All unhappy families are unhappy any one of those five or six reasons. 4) All TRUE statements are true because of consistency in six dimensions. All FALSE statements are false because of inconsistency in any ONE of those six dimensions. 5) All analytically true (mathematically true) statements correspondingly model reality because of consistency of correspondence of six dimensions. All analytically false statements are false because they fail to correspond to reality in any one of those six dimensions. 6) Existential(actionable) reality is composed of only so many ACTIONABLE dimensions, followed by only so many CAUSALLY RELATABLE dimensions. 7) The ‘True Name’ (Most Parsimonious Truth) of any phenomenon (set of consistent relations at some scale of actionable utility), can be described by the number, scope, limits, relations, relative change, and ACTIONABLE change, of those dimensions. THEREFORE 1) There exist fundamental laws of existentially possible action and comprehension in the existing universe as it is constructed (and likely must be constructed). 2) These laws can be described theoretically until known, and by analogy, axiomatically once they ARE known. By convention (by honesty and truthfulness) we distinguish between declarative axiomatic systems (analytic), and existential theoretic (existing) systems in order to NOT claim that axiomatic and declarative, and theoretical(laws), are equal in empirical content. They are not. To do so is to conduct either an analogy for the purpose of communication, or an error of understanding, or a fraud for the purpose of deception. We can determine whether ignorance, error, or deception by analysis of the speaker’s argument(error or ignorance) and incentives (fraud), including unconscious fraud (justification). 3) We can theorize from observation and imagination, to understanding (top down) or from understanding to imagination and observation (bottom up). But unless we can both construct (operationally and therefore existentially) as well as observe (empirically, and therefore existential) then we cannot say we possess the knowledge to make a truth claim about a theoretic system or an axiomatic system – although we must keep in mind that axiomatic systems are ‘complete and tautological’ and theoretic statements ‘incomplete and descriptive’. 4) To warranty against falsehood of any Statement, we must perform due diligence upon our free associations, ensuring that we have established consistent limits(invariant descriptions) for each of the dimensions: i) categorical consistency (identity consistency) ii) logical consistency (internal consistency) iii) empirical consistency (external correspondence) iv) existential consistency (operational correspondence) v) moral consistency (voluntarily reciprocal) vi) Scope, Limits and Parsimony (scope consistency) 5) The empirical measurement that Taleb, artificial intelligence researchers, and myself are seeking is how to quantify the information necessary for the human mind to form a free association (a pattern). This unit, if discovered, will be analogous to calories of heat, as the basic unit of state change in information. My theory is that this number, as Taleb has suggested is extremely large (logarithmically so) which accounts for the rarity of intelligence: the amount of memory, and the evolutionary and biological cost of memory, necessary to form even basic relations (free associations) appears to be extraordinarily high. THEREFORE 1) Mises epistemology is false. MIses, Popper, Hayek, Bridgman, Brouwer all had a piece of the problem but they all failed to synthesize their findings into a complete reformation of the scientific method (the method of stating truthful propositions. – economics is a scientific, not logical discipline. – the categories mises uses to determine human action are insufficient (and constructed in my opinion as a justificationary fraud just as is Jewish law – which is my interpretation – only causal axis I can find – of why he failed.) WHAT DID MISES ERR REGARDING? 1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. (But we must understand that it is because they possess the minimum dimensions necessary for spatial descriptions,) Note: The human mind evolved to prey upon other creatures. Unlike frogs and cockroaches that just seek the closest dark spot, humans must prey. To prey we must anticipate velocity in time. This is why we can chase something, and we can throw rocks, spears, and arrows at moving things. And why we and canines can model the destination of a thrown or fallen object. But we also evolved the ability to choose. To model one set of conditions and compare it to another set of conditions. And to model the conditions of OTHERS (intentions), and to compare it to other conditions. So this is why we can hold about five things in mind at once before resorting to breaking a ‘vision’ into patterns. (I have elaborated on each of the dimensions elsewhere). 2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable). 3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions. 4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups. 5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment). 6) There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both. So by these three disciplines: the imaginary and mental, the cooperative and existential, and the physical – we managed to slowly assemble a sufficient understanding of truth in each of those disciplines, that together we can establish tests for ANY PROPOSITION in ANY DISCIPLINE: Mental, Cooperative, and PHYSICAL by the due diligence of consistency in the dimensions that apply to that instance. i) Categorical and Logical (mental) ii) Operational and Existential (physical) iii) Morality and Scope (cooperative) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • The End of Justificationary APriorism vs Critical Empiricism

    THE END OF APRIORISM VS EMPIRICISM (read it and weep) 😉 PROPOSITIONS 1) All domesticatable animals are domesticatable for five reasons. All undomesticatable animals are undomesticatable for any one of them. 2) All human personalities are highly functional for five or six reasons. All dysfunctional families are dysfunctional for any one of those six reasons. 3) All happy families are happy for the same five or six reasons. All unhappy families are unhappy any one of those five or six reasons. 4) All TRUE statements are true because of consistency in six dimensions. All FALSE statements are false because of inconsistency in any ONE of those six dimensions. 5) All analytically true (mathematically true) statements correspondingly model reality because of consistency of correspondence of six dimensions. All analytically false statements are false because they fail to correspond to reality in any one of those six dimensions. 6) Existential(actionable) reality is composed of only so many ACTIONABLE dimensions, followed by only so many CAUSALLY RELATABLE dimensions. 7) The ‘True Name’ (Most Parsimonious Truth) of any phenomenon (set of consistent relations at some scale of actionable utility), can be described by the number, scope, limits, relations, relative change, and ACTIONABLE change, of those dimensions. THEREFORE 1) There exist fundamental laws of existentially possible action and comprehension in the existing universe as it is constructed (and likely must be constructed). 2) These laws can be described theoretically until known, and by analogy, axiomatically once they ARE known. By convention (by honesty and truthfulness) we distinguish between declarative axiomatic systems (analytic), and existential theoretic (existing) systems in order to NOT claim that axiomatic and declarative, and theoretical(laws), are equal in empirical content. They are not. To do so is to conduct either an analogy for the purpose of communication, or an error of understanding, or a fraud for the purpose of deception. We can determine whether ignorance, error, or deception by analysis of the speaker’s argument(error or ignorance) and incentives (fraud), including unconscious fraud (justification). 3) We can theorize from observation and imagination, to understanding (top down) or from understanding to imagination and observation (bottom up). But unless we can both construct (operationally and therefore existentially) as well as observe (empirically, and therefore existential) then we cannot say we possess the knowledge to make a truth claim about a theoretic system or an axiomatic system – although we must keep in mind that axiomatic systems are ‘complete and tautological’ and theoretic statements ‘incomplete and descriptive’. 4) To warranty against falsehood of any Statement, we must perform due diligence upon our free associations, ensuring that we have established consistent limits(invariant descriptions) for each of the dimensions: i) categorical consistency (identity consistency) ii) logical consistency (internal consistency) iii) empirical consistency (external correspondence) iv) existential consistency (operational correspondence) v) moral consistency (voluntarily reciprocal) vi) Scope, Limits and Parsimony (scope consistency) 5) The empirical measurement that Taleb, artificial intelligence researchers, and myself are seeking is how to quantify the information necessary for the human mind to form a free association (a pattern). This unit, if discovered, will be analogous to calories of heat, as the basic unit of state change in information. My theory is that this number, as Taleb has suggested is extremely large (logarithmically so) which accounts for the rarity of intelligence: the amount of memory, and the evolutionary and biological cost of memory, necessary to form even basic relations (free associations) appears to be extraordinarily high. THEREFORE 1) Mises epistemology is false. MIses, Popper, Hayek, Bridgman, Brouwer all had a piece of the problem but they all failed to synthesize their findings into a complete reformation of the scientific method (the method of stating truthful propositions. – economics is a scientific, not logical discipline. – the categories mises uses to determine human action are insufficient (and constructed in my opinion as a justificationary fraud just as is Jewish law – which is my interpretation – only causal axis I can find – of why he failed.) WHAT DID MISES ERR REGARDING? 1) Apriorism is but a special case of Empiricism, just as Prime Numbers are a special case in mathematics, and just as is any set of operations that returns a natural number; and again, is a special case, just as contradiction is a special case in logic.The laws of triangles form a particularly useful set of special cases. (But we must understand that it is because they possess the minimum dimensions necessary for spatial descriptions,) Note: The human mind evolved to prey upon other creatures. Unlike frogs and cockroaches that just seek the closest dark spot, humans must prey. To prey we must anticipate velocity in time. This is why we can chase something, and we can throw rocks, spears, and arrows at moving things. And why we and canines can model the destination of a thrown or fallen object. But we also evolved the ability to choose. To model one set of conditions and compare it to another set of conditions. And to model the conditions of OTHERS (intentions), and to compare it to other conditions. So this is why we can hold about five things in mind at once before resorting to breaking a ‘vision’ into patterns. (I have elaborated on each of the dimensions elsewhere). 2) Few (possibly no non-tautological, or at least non-reductio) aprioristic statements survive scope consistency (I can find none in economics that are actionable). 3) We can establish free associations(hypotheses) empirically (top down) or constructively (bottom up). But the method of discovery places no truth constraint on the statement. All must survive the full test of dimensions. 4) This does NOT mean that we cannot use a ‘partial truth’ (an hypothesis that does not survive all six dimensions) to search for further associations (partial search criteria). It is this UTILITY IN SEARCHING that we have converted first into reason, second into rationalism, third into empiricism, fourth in to operationalism, and fifth into scope consistency, and sixth into ‘natural law’ or morality or ‘voluntary cooperation’ – volition which is necessary to ensure the information quality in small groups, just as norms and laws are necessary methods of establishing limits in larger groups, just as money is necessary for producing actionable information in very large groups. 5) there is but one epistemological method: accumulate information, identify pattern, search for hypothesis, criticize hypothesis to produce a theory, distribute the theory (speak), let others criticize the theory until it fails, or we create a conceptual norm of it (law), and finally until we habituate it entirely (metaphysical judgment). 6) There is nothing special about physical science other than philosophy was free of COST constraints but held by moral constraints, and science was free of MORAL constraints as well as cost constraints, and judicial law was bound by both. So by these three disciplines: the imaginary and mental, the cooperative and existential, and the physical – we managed to slowly assemble a sufficient understanding of truth in each of those disciplines, that together we can establish tests for ANY PROPOSITION in ANY DISCIPLINE: Mental, Cooperative, and PHYSICAL by the due diligence of consistency in the dimensions that apply to that instance. i) Categorical and Logical (mental) ii) Operational and Existential (physical) iii) Morality and Scope (cooperative) Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Absent Juridical Defense, We Must Return To Violence.

    As Sovereign men we create juridical defense to keep peace among equals. We appeal to the MARKET OF PEERS (JURY) FOR resolution of the disputes. Thus submitting to the peers, and asking for equal treatment as is due all peers: insurance against the imposition of costs. But if we lack juridical defense, or are prevented from juridical defense, then there is no reason by which we can seek insurance by the group, and instead, must self-insure, by restitution, punishment, and if necessary death, of those who impose upon us. As far as I know we can kill Soros.

  • Absent Juridical Defense, We Must Return To Violence.

    As Sovereign men we create juridical defense to keep peace among equals. We appeal to the MARKET OF PEERS (JURY) FOR resolution of the disputes. Thus submitting to the peers, and asking for equal treatment as is due all peers: insurance against the imposition of costs. But if we lack juridical defense, or are prevented from juridical defense, then there is no reason by which we can seek insurance by the group, and instead, must self-insure, by restitution, punishment, and if necessary death, of those who impose upon us. As far as I know we can kill Soros.

  • Forcing People To Come To The Table To Trade

    Aug 24, 2016 1:01pm If you don’t understand what I’m doing, then, of course you’ll make the mistake of classifying me as right wing fascist – but it’s not true at all. Like my predecessors in sovereignty under judge-discovered, common, natural law, I am trying to limit people to fully informed, productive, voluntary exchanges, free of externalities of the same. So I advocate for the use of natural law, to incrementally suppress, parasitism by all means, through the use of common, judge discovered, empirical law. Strictly constructed from the first principle of natural law (NPP), consisting of whereas (problem), whereas (objective), therefore (prohibition), by (these means), claim (proof), warranty (judge).This creates (a) a market for reproduction: family, (b) a market for production of goods and services(consumption), and (c) a market for commons (investments). The only anywhere near-fascist part of my proposition is paying people who lack demonstrated ability to create the moral hazard of producing offspring, to not force their costs upon us, and to be punished if they do, like any other criminal. I do not understand why a person has some natural right to reproduction any more than the natural right to murder, violence, theft, and fraud in its many incarnations. They do not and cannot. And it was just as strange to our ancestors who passionately objected to our forcible prohibition on intertribal warfare, and inter-kinship feuds, and punishment of petty thefts, and standard of weights and measures, and prohibitions against frauds, and requirements against warranty. None of us wants constraints on our parasitism of others, because it increases the costs and effort we must bear if we are to persist. But that is what has been and will forever remain, good for mankind: the incremental suppression of parasitism by each means until there remains no possible method of parasitism available, and we have no other choice for survival than cooperation by engaging in fully informed, productive, voluntary exchange, limited to externality of the same criteria. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine [1] NPP refers to Non Parasitism Principle: the requirement for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to externality of the same criteria.