Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • cannot be given, they can only be discovered. Lawgiving is logically impossible.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-shall-we-ignore-any-human-law-state-king-president-judge-or-lawgiver/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=37a5b2caLaws cannot be given, they can only be discovered.

    Lawgiving is logically impossible. One can issue commands. One can negotiate contractual provisions on your behalf. But one cannot create law, only command, legislation, regulation, and contractual provision.

    There is one natural law, that can be stated in the positive or negative, but must be stated as both positive and negative. (I’ve written too much on this today and don’t want to repeat myself, so I’m not going into detail.)

    Obverse: – The silver rule (Natural Law – the negative ) do not do unto others… etc.

    Reverse: – The golden rule (Natural Rights – the positive ) do unto others only what …. etc.

    There is only on moral law that these two rules are derived from:

    Obverse: – negative: impose no unwanted costs upon that which others have acted to create, obtain, and inventory, whether life, kin, mate, relation, property, norm, or institution.

    Reverse: – positive: limit your actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to externalities of the same criteria.

    In other words: “do no harm” is the one law of human cooperation. Because harm is what causes retaliation, breaks the peace, reduces trust, increases transaction and opportunity costs, and reduces the quality of life for everyone in the vicinity as a consequence.

    These laws are geographically, demographically, culturally, normatively, institutionally, traditionally, independent, and provide universal decidability in all matters of conflict, whether participants like it or not.

    What differs is the only the in-group contracts in the forms of property, laws, norms, traditions, institutions, territory and monuments. But within group this rule still applies.

    Ergo, you only listen to a command when its either in going to benefit you, or when ignoring or contradicting it will lead to your harm or punishment.

    Otherwise, there is no connection between commands and the only necessary laws: objective morality, natural law, and natural rights. Do no harm, seek no involuntary gain.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 15:36:00 UTC

  • ARE NO SERIOUS FASCIST PHILOSOPHERS FOR THE SAME REASON THERE ARE NO PHILOSOPHER

    https://www.quora.com/Are-there-serious-contemporary-Fascist-philosophers/answer/Curt-Doolittle?srid=u4Qv&share=74827bffTHERE ARE NO SERIOUS FASCIST PHILOSOPHERS FOR THE SAME REASON THERE ARE NO PHILOSOPHERS OF HOPLITE WARFARE

    (a fun one)

    **Fascism** is a ‘**military’ strategy** for Marshaling all economic, political, and cultural resources for the purpose of opposing **Bolshevism, Communism, Socialism**, and totalitarianism by the conduct of **military, economic and cultural warfare**.

    Just as Napoleonic **Total War** is a strategy for marshaling all national resources for the conduct of military warfare prior to the industrial revolution, when economic warfare was relatively ineffective.

    Just as today we use **economic warfare **almost exclusively to contain Russian expansion into southern Europe, eastern Europe and the Baltic, and as we did use to constrain Iran into constraining its expansion into Iraq, Syria and Israel.

    Ergo:

    1. MILITARY: Nationalization of resources for military war: Napoleon **Total War** (State Credit under Nation States), Physical warfare was appropriate for the era.

    2. ECONOMIC: Nationalization of resource for military, economic and cultural war: **Fascism**, or **Economic Warfare, **by the construction of an autarkic (self dependent) economy. The combination of physical, economic and cultural warfare was appropriate for the era.

    3. FINANCIAL: Nationalization of federal trade policy to cause economic collapse: I don’t have a word for it but operationally it would be called “**Financial Warfare**”., by depriving competitors of access to the world markets and financial system. (which destroys economic velocity, political authority, and social stability). Financial warfare is appropriate for the era.

    4. CULTURAL : the Frankfurt school of Marxism was perhaps the most effective form of warfare developed in the twentieth century. The objective is to destroy a civilization from within by sewing discord and internal conflict. It has taken many decades but combined with vast underclass immigration it has been almost successful in destroying the American Rule of Law experiment.

    PHILOSOPHERS?

    In this sense, it is no longer necessary for us to develop philosophers for the purpose of Military Total War (state credit), Economic Total War (Fiat Money), or Financial Total War (International Financial System)

    It is however, necessary (and I am one of them) to develop philosophers to counter the combination of false history, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and propaganda, using academy, state, media complex, to conduct cultural warfare.

    So no. There are no Fascist philosophers per se, for the same reason there are no philosophers of Napoleonic (or hoplite) warfare.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-17 13:44:00 UTC

  • How Does A President Lead A Country Fairly And Democratically With So Many People Having Mixed Agendas, Ideas And Opinions?

    It’s impossible, since democracy is only capable of selecting priorities among people with homogenous interests, and impossible to select between conflicting choices among people with heterogeneous interests.

    Markets let us cooperate on means despite different ends – no monopolies.

    Democracy is a monopoly in which we cannot cooperate on means because of different ends.

    Democracy has been a catastrophe.

    The original anglo model was not democratic but consisted of different HOUSES for each CLASS, including the CHURCH, so that Monarchy, regional managers, personal property owners, and common people(church) could negotiate EXCHANGES between the classes.

    The English system created a market under which most can be satisfied. Democracy destroyed it by creating a monopoly under which no one can be satisfied.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/How-does-a-President-lead-a-country-fairly-and-democratically-with-so-many-people-having-mixed-agendas-ideas-and-opinions

  • Why Shall We Ignore Any Human Law, State, King (president), Judge Or Lawgiver?

    Laws cannot be given, they can only be discovered.

    Lawgiving is logically impossible. One can issue commands. One can negotiate contractual provisions on your behalf. But one cannot create law, only command, legislation, regulation, and contractual provision.

    There is one natural law, that can be stated in the positive or negative, but must be stated as both positive and negative. (I’ve written too much on this today and don’t want to repeat myself, so I’m not going into detail.)

    • Obverse: – The silver rule (Natural Law – the negative ) do not do unto others… etc.
    • Reverse: – The golden rule (Natural Rights – the positive ) do unto others only what …. etc.

    There is only on moral law that these two rules are derived from:

    • Obverse: – negative: impose no unwanted costs upon that which others have acted to create, obtain, and inventory, whether life, kin, mate, relation, property, norm, or institution.
    • Reverse: – positive: limit your actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to externalities of the same criteria.

    In other words: “do no harm” is the one law of human cooperation. Because harm is what causes retaliation, breaks the peace, reduces trust, increases transaction and opportunity costs, and reduces the quality of life for everyone in the vicinity as a consequence.

    These laws are geographically, demographically, culturally, normatively, institutionally, traditionally, independent, and provide universal decidability in all matters of conflict, whether participants like it or not.

    What differs is the only the in-group contracts in the forms of property, laws, norms, traditions, institutions, territory and monuments. But within group this rule still applies.

    Ergo, you only listen to a command when its either in going to benefit you, or when ignoring or contradicting it will lead to your harm or punishment.

    Otherwise, there is no connection between commands and the only necessary laws: objective morality, natural law, and natural rights. Do no harm, seek no involuntary gain.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/Why-shall-we-ignore-any-human-law-state-king-president-judge-or-lawgiver

  • Why Shall We Ignore Any Human Law, State, King (president), Judge Or Lawgiver?

    Laws cannot be given, they can only be discovered.

    Lawgiving is logically impossible. One can issue commands. One can negotiate contractual provisions on your behalf. But one cannot create law, only command, legislation, regulation, and contractual provision.

    There is one natural law, that can be stated in the positive or negative, but must be stated as both positive and negative. (I’ve written too much on this today and don’t want to repeat myself, so I’m not going into detail.)

    • Obverse: – The silver rule (Natural Law – the negative ) do not do unto others… etc.
    • Reverse: – The golden rule (Natural Rights – the positive ) do unto others only what …. etc.

    There is only on moral law that these two rules are derived from:

    • Obverse: – negative: impose no unwanted costs upon that which others have acted to create, obtain, and inventory, whether life, kin, mate, relation, property, norm, or institution.
    • Reverse: – positive: limit your actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, limited to externalities of the same criteria.

    In other words: “do no harm” is the one law of human cooperation. Because harm is what causes retaliation, breaks the peace, reduces trust, increases transaction and opportunity costs, and reduces the quality of life for everyone in the vicinity as a consequence.

    These laws are geographically, demographically, culturally, normatively, institutionally, traditionally, independent, and provide universal decidability in all matters of conflict, whether participants like it or not.

    What differs is the only the in-group contracts in the forms of property, laws, norms, traditions, institutions, territory and monuments. But within group this rule still applies.

    Ergo, you only listen to a command when its either in going to benefit you, or when ignoring or contradicting it will lead to your harm or punishment.

    Otherwise, there is no connection between commands and the only necessary laws: objective morality, natural law, and natural rights. Do no harm, seek no involuntary gain.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    https://www.quora.com/Why-shall-we-ignore-any-human-law-state-king-president-judge-or-lawgiver

  • Does Evolutionary Theory Presuppose A Preceding Grand Design Or Natural Law?

    Natural Law (Empirically Discovered Law) consists of general rules, that are location, demographic, custom, culture, and religion independent methods of providing decidability in matters of conflict.

    • (Law is prohibitive -negative- assertions)
    • Negative ethics of Natural Law are usually reducible to the Silver Rule: do not unto others as you would not have done unto you.

    Natural Rights (Desirable Contract Provisions) consist of those general rules, stated not as negative prohibitions, but as positive aspirations, such that all governments must bring into being – regardles of location, demographic, custom, culture, and religion, as a list of those conditions under which the government will exercise violence in order to resolve conflicts, so that prosperous cooperation can continue – given that the government is the insurer of last resort.

    • (Rights are positive -desirable- assertions).
    • Positive Ethics of Natural Rights are usually reducible to the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have done unto you.

    By combining Natural Law, and Natural Rights, we produce RIGHTS and OBLIGATIONS of the natural CONTRACT for COOPERATION that is necessary for humans (or any sentient being), to avoid parasitism, predation, conflict, and war.

    SOCIAL CONSEQUENCES
    Natural(Obligations) Law and Natural Rights are consequently reducible to a very simple set of laws:

    1- That in the choice between avoidance (boycott), cooperation (trade), and conflcit (war), it is only rational to avoid war in the absence of parasitism and predation.

    2 – That our moral instincts, which punish cheating even if very costly, are reducible to the prohibition on parasitism in order to preserve the incentive for cooperation, because of the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, and the disproportionate loss of non-cooperation, and that catastrophic loss of conflict.

    3 – That the differences in our moral instincts are reducible to our reproductive differences:

    • Progressive: Mother/Sister: consumption bias: short term. Feed the OFFSPRING regardless of the quality of the child or the cost to the tribe’s defense
    • Libertarian: Brother: trade bias: medium term. Form alliances to build capital until we BROTHERS have resources of our own.
    • Conservative: Father: save/defense/offense bias: long term. Preserve the ability of the TRIBE to fight competitors

    PHYSICAL LAWS
    These laws are then reducible to very simple physical law: that genetic organisms, particularly animals that can move, discover patterns by which they can capture free energy, use it, and export the unusable as waste heat.

    Or put another way: no organism can survive if it is the subject of sufficient parasitism that such parasitism will reduce its reproductive consequences.

    Ergo: there is no altruism in nature, because its suicidal. At best we find kin selection that is not.

    SO IN CLOSING
    Natural law is a consequence of the conservation of energy in physical law and nothing else.

    https://www.quora.com/Does-evolutionary-theory-presuppose-a-preceding-grand-design-or-natural-law

  • ISN”T A PRIORISM A TRIVIAL CASE? (test post) —“Curt Doolittle said “… and th

    ISN”T A PRIORISM A TRIVIAL CASE?

    (test post)

    —“Curt Doolittle said “… and then to claim that a priori and a posteriori are different classes of knowledge rather than the apriori is but a special case of the universal epistemological sequence we mistakenly call the scientific method …”—

    —“I’d like to hear more about this. With what people call ‘a priori propositions,’ I cannot even conceive of a world in which they are false; they’re logically necessary. With what are called ‘a posteriori propositions,’ I can imagine a possible world in which they are false; they are logically contingent. Are you saying that logically necessary propositions are also known to be true by way of experience?”— Ulysses Aaron Cartwright :

    Great question.

    We can have this discussion most easily by :

    – Examining cases of tautology -> non contradiction > correspondence -> correlation -> analogy

    – Just like we can with tautology-> deduction -> induction -> abduction -> guess

    – Just as we can with tautology -> law -> theory -> hypothesis -> free association

    – Just as we can with naming -> counting -> Arithmetic -> accounting -> Geometry -> and calculus;

    – Just as we can with all other dimensional criticisms of the epistemological spectrum.

    But I sense that by merely enumerating this subset of spectra that you can see that statements claimed to be apriori are just reductio instances of informational-coincidence as much as are those of prime numbers.

    Such statements exist as prime numbers exist but they are merely a simplistic subset expressive in common language as are prime numbers an artifact of the base number system.

    There is but one epistemological method for all of mankind.

    *Free association->hypothesis->theory->law->tautology.*

    When criticizing any statement we have a number of dimensions we can test.

    1- Categorical consistency (identity)

    2 – Internal consistency (logic)

    3 – External consistency (correspondence)

    4 – Existential Consistency (operational language)

    5 – Moral consistency (rational reciprocal volution)

    6 – And scope consistency. (full accounting, limits, parsimony)

    We can express theories in any of these dimensions using the language of the method of testing that dimension.

    We can also see if statements that survive in a lower dimension still survive in a higher dimension.

    In the case of apriori statements they rarely survive scope consistency. In other words, they are often not false but they are also often in-actionable. [1]

    This is an example of the difference between ‘meaningful'(creating associations, communicating) and ‘true’ (parsimony, criticism).

    If we take a case by case non-trivial study, then it is unclear whether we are saying something meaningful (educational) or something critical (parsimoniously descriptive).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    [1] I usually use the examples: (i) neutrality of money (ii) minimum wages increase unemployment, (iii) the unpredictability of gasses (iv) the scope of newton’s laws.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-16 14:22:00 UTC

  • Do We Have The Right To Have Rights?

    We SEEK rights. Rights can only exist if insured by an insurer.
    So we don’t CAN’T have the right to have them.
    We can on the other hand desire them.
    We pretty much need them.
    And we can work to obtain them.

    Although if you look at the present era, we’re lucky if we get negative rights and we will never get positive rights. It’s suicidal. Look at europe.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-the-right-to-have-rights

  • Do We Have The Right To Have Rights?

    We SEEK rights. Rights can only exist if insured by an insurer.
    So we don’t CAN’T have the right to have them.
    We can on the other hand desire them.
    We pretty much need them.
    And we can work to obtain them.

    Although if you look at the present era, we’re lucky if we get negative rights and we will never get positive rights. It’s suicidal. Look at europe.

    https://www.quora.com/Do-we-have-the-right-to-have-rights

  • There are no infinite goods including free trade. Unless you have performed a fu

    There are no infinite goods including free trade. Unless you have performed a full accounting such that you have measured the full set of externalities, then how can you blindly state that free trade is an objective good?

    When we form polities and construct markets we lower opportunity and transaction costs, and ‘ create opportunities’ – and through competition we seize them, converting a common asset into private goods, producing those private goods both as an individual and common good.

    When we trade with external parties in other polities and on other markets, we may or may not by externality produce good or harm.

    For example when we are compensating for resource and geographic differences this is hard to argue with.

    When we import or export products and services that create vulnerability we also do harm.

    When we are engaged in labor discounting then we may or may not be producing good.

    When we export advantageous technical knowledge we are surely harm.

    When we export medicines we are doing Harm in many ways.

    Price is a poor measure of total cost to capital.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-06 07:45:00 UTC