Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • ***NAP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retal

    ***NAP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation.*** Jewish law, culture, and religion attempt to preserve separatism so that they gain the benefits of the host’s commons production, without paying for the normative commons. Just as Gypsies do, but gypsies keep the cost low enough, and appeal to our altruism enough, that the cost of extermination is more than we are willing to pay. Jews do not limit their parasitism, and perform it largely through externality or deception, and this is why they are, over the centuries, repeatedly retaliated against: because the cost has become high enough that hosts must.****

    This is not unknown since jewish authors discuss this problem openly.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:30:00 UTC

  • WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS

    —-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-

    [T]his is an interesting example, so lets use it. You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question. Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable. So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes. We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism. Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically). Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood. So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations). But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex). This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH. Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error. It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions. So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements. What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions. When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compensatory means they will not tolerate it. So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons. One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS

    —-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-

    [T]his is an interesting example, so lets use it. You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question. Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable. So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes. We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism. Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically). Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood. So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations). But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex). This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH. Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error. It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions. So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements. What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions. When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compensatory means they will not tolerate it. So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons. One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Lets reframe the argument: I SAID THIS “The NAP/IVP is insufficient for the dete

    Lets reframe the argument:

    I SAID THIS

    “The NAP/IVP is insufficient for the determination of rational action, insufficient for decidability in the resolution of disputes, and insufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity.” (or thereabouts)

    But your criticism was that the NAP was sufficient for the determination of rational action and that I was wrong.

    We then go on to demonstrate that it you can come up with excuses to circumvent common examples of conflicts that have arisen over the problem of hinderance rather than physical aggression. But you ignore the costs imposed by hinderance and the resources available for alternatives.

    So we demonstrate that physicality is insufficient for the determination of rational action. Ergo, you were wrong.

    You then counter that it is rational to do what you want, and I counter that it is only rational if reasoning can result in the desired ends. Otherwise it’s irrational. And since your reasoning from the NAP/physicality cannot result in the desired ends of non-retaliation, then it cannot be sufficient. Ergo you were wrong.

    I then explain that others determine the ethical limits of your actions, not you, and now you flip around and say you agree, and were saying that all along. When it’s logically impossible that your judgement is the source of ethical limits AND we require others to determine if ethical limits exist. Ergo, you were wrong.

    I try to correct your representation. I show you the observation, hypothesis, criticism cycle or what is called “PTT”, but apparently this level of precision which would correct your use of terms and disallow you to claim that your egoistic perception provides truth content, rather than the survival of your perception from criticism. And you accuse me of unnecessary precision as a means of escaping your error. Ergo you were wrong.

    I try to correct your misrepresentation. You use the verb to-be: “is” and “are” to refer to existence without referring to the form of existence so that you can engage in a deception by conflating existence, action, and experience. This is an amateurish error but it allows you to make the false statements that you observe an existing fact rather than a fact is the result of criticism in order to ensure that you have not erred. You have avoided all of these statements and engaged in banter and distraction in order to avoid answering the basic premise that your perceptions are fallible on the one and and that the constraint on your behavior toward others is not determined by your choice, your reasoning, your argumentary justification, but by empirical evidence of what people choose to retaliate for and against. Ergo you were wrong.

    You constantly misuse terms as a means of avoiding falsifying your argument yourself. You seem to think “ethical judgement” refers to the individual alone, but this cannot be, since ethical only refers to interpersonal actions, and only can. Other judgments are useful only. Ethical judgements may be useful. Otherwise they are merely beneficial or not. Ethical statements require others. Just as I can demonstrate defense of property against all of nature and animals, but rights cannot exist without others.

    You then abandon the argument saying I need to learn something, and return to your question of correspondence hoping that retreat will save you from failure, but this requires you again rely on your ability to determine truth or falsehood without testing it. And your conflation of reality (existence), action (observation), cognition, and criticism.

    Well here is the thing.

    Here is your tactic: “I use imprecision (fuzzy language), conflation, terminological misrepresentation, bypassing contradiction, and outright distraction or deception in order to preserve myself from admitting that my faith in the NAP is nonsense justified by nonsense: a deception.

    So lets look at some more ways you engage in deception.

    —Golly, I thought that was my point!—

    if that was your point then show me where it was your point because your argument is was that I erred in my statement that the NAP was insufficient for rational action – because physicality is too limited a constraint on one’s physical aggression against their physical property, because OTHER human beings do not limit their retaliation against you to your physical property.

    TRANSLATE

    — how I use it—

    “how I misrepresent my ideas”

    — thuggery —

    “how I create an excuse to refer to non-physical violence, while claiming it’s physical violence – ‘in some sort of *way*’ “

    —I just said —

    “how I pretend what I just said is equal to what curt said even though i am simply avoiding the difference between the self determination of truth by personal judgement as if I never err, rather than the empirical determination of truth through criticism precisely because I err.”

    — waste my time—

    “how I avoid learning why I err and why I misrepresent arguments, and acknowledge the defeat of my ideas.”

    SO HERE IS THE TRUTH

    There are many kinds of liars. And the kind that attempts to lie to himself, is an a common one. And that is the liar you appear to be.

    You are justifying your free riding by an elaborate justificationary self deception by the misuse of terms, and intentional ignorance.

    —I don’t care—-

    But that is because you are an immoral man, working to maintain a false fantasy just as much as any religious obsessive. And for the same reason; reality is undesirable to you.

    I DO CARE

    Because it is a moral man’s duty to protect the commons from pollution by error, bias, wishful thinking, fantasy, and deception of every kind.

    And as a moral man I care that you are perpetuating the rothbardian lie just as others perpetuate the boazian, marxist, freudian lies, and keyneisan deception by innumeracy.

    So this is why I worked so long to defeat your argument entirely.

    I do not need your consent to invalidate your argument. I don’t need you to change your mind. A dishonest man’s opinion is irrelevant. I just need to show the audience how people like you carry on deception an self deception by wishful thinking using all sorts of techniques to preserve their ability to criticize using deception, and maintain the pretense of the superiority of their ideas using deception.

    You’re either a useful idiot, or a bad human being spreading verbal disease to protect an investment in a falsehood that gives you confidence and status.

    MY ARGUMENT STANDS

    “The NAP/IVP is insufficient for the determination of rational action, insufficient for decidability in the resolution of disputes, and insufficient for the formation of a voluntary polity.” (or thereabouts)

    ONLY Non aggression against property-en-toto – demonstrated property determined by empirical means, and tested sympathetically for the rationality of incentives – is sufficient for rational action, decidability in law, and the formation of a voluntary polity.

    ergo, nomocracy.

    Thus endeth the lesson.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 11:56:00 UTC

  • WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS —-“As if Jim could ans

    WHAT CONSTITUTES A FACT? OUTING AMATEURS AS FREE RIDERS

    —-“As if Jim could answer that without first RECOGNIZING the FACT of your question.”—-

    This is an interesting example, so lets use it.

    You observe the text, determine the question, can make sense of it, and therefore determine it exists. This is a very simple statement. But the reason it is a fact is that you cannot find evidence that it does not exist, or is not comprehensible as a question.

    Observation -> “recognition” -> free association -> hypothesis -> test -> theory -> test -> Law

    This sequence (popper’s problem->theory->test cycle) is what our brains do. It’s inescapable.

    So you can indeed recognize what you believe is a fact. Yes.

    We construct facts by testing the results of our observations against the possibility of falsehood. You use the term ‘recognizing’ which means ‘correspondence’. But correspondence must survive criticism. Ergo a fact is the result of survival from criticism.

    Now, this is what scientists do, and this is the meaning of fact in philosophy and science. If you want to use analogies and non operational arguments to justify your usage, then as long as I an translate your colloquialism into truthful statements I can attest that you MEAN the truth mean and intend to convey the truth even if you lack the ability (skill) to speak truthfully (scientifically).

    Now if you move from reductio examples to the court of disputes how often are people’s observations and subsequent testimony true? Well, we know from both a vast body of experiments, and the change in testimony after the invention of photography, and then video, that our ‘recognition’ is plagued with falsehood.

    So there is a big difference between recognition (an hypothesis), and a fact (a theory) because that difference

    There is a minor difference between a fact (theory of a description of an observation) and a theory (a description of a general rule that explains many observations).

    But the epistemological process is identical. We observe, identify (recognize and therefore hypothesize), test (criticize and produce theory), and repeat this process over and over again. (See “On Intelligence” by Jeff Hawkins for accessible research, and explanatory model of synthesis in layers of the cortex).

    This distinction is important because it is not the identity(recognition) that converts an observation to a fact, but the criticism (survival) of the observation that converts it to a fact. This is why we engage in a distribution of labor in research because we are so bad at testing observations and constructing theories that we need our own judgements tested – IF WE SEEK TRUTH.

    Now, the crux of YOUR argument is that one only needs sufficient confidence in correspondence with reality in order to act, and that is because one (often) bears the cost of one’s (frequent) error.

    It is when our actions affect any polity or group that the externalities of our errors ask us to judge not our own confidence in our observations and testing, but wether others will retaliate (at worst), ignore (as usual), or reward with opportunities of cooperation (at best) the externalities caused by our actions.

    So the sufficiency of our judgements in what we determine action is dependent upon the externalities produced by those judgements.

    What most libertines attempt to do is tell others that they do not wish to account for externalities produced by our actions, and that others ‘should tolerate’ the externalities produced by our actions.

    When people demonstrably do not do that. They retaliate against any and all imposition of costs on their potentials (inventory of property en toto), and if one is not contributing to them by compestatory means they will not tolerate it.

    So this is why the NAP/IVP is insufficient for rational action. It is insufficient for the prevention of retaliation, and the boycott of opportunity from others. And in fact it is not only insufficient but it is an attempt to justify parasitic actions caused by the externalization of costs, and justify the non contribution to the commons despite the fact that any general rule of behavior must be adopted as a common contract by consent and therefore exists as a commons.

    One does not choose the incentives of others. They merely exist as surely as the earth itself.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-13 07:56:00 UTC

  • ***Now, without protection all of their accumulated potential – what we call ass

    ***Now, without protection all of their accumulated potential – what we call assets – from the imposition of costs, what do people DO? Not what do we WISH they did – because that is fantasy – but what do people do? They retaliate. That’s what they do. If they can’t retaliate they constrain their risk. If their risk constraint is sufficient to inhibit their consumption, then they leave. If enough inability to retaliate occurs, and enough risk constraint occurs, and enough deprivation of consumption occurs, people leave systematically and stop coming systematically. You don’t choose the level of suppression necessary to form a stateless polity: THE MARKET FOR HUMAN COOPERATION DOES.***

    Not why this is complicated for a libertine to grasp. But the market determines membership in a exitable and enterable polity. As such people will choose what is in their interest to cooperate with, boycott what is not in their interest to cooperate with, and destroy what is in their interest to destroy.

    This is natural law.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-12 06:36:00 UTC

  • NEW VIDEO: Propertarianism – Correcting and Completing Non Aggression

    “QUESTION:” CURT: DO YOU HAVE A SIMPLE VERSION OF THIS TALK?” Sure. Or, I’ll try hard. wink emoticon 1) The “NAP” that only limits physical aggression leaves open “trickery and deceit’ as well as ‘free riding parasitism’ and ‘conspiracy’. And by leaving open these forms of aggression, the NAP cannot produce property rights, an anarchic polity, or a condition of liberty. 2) It is irrational for other than career criminals to prefer membership in a polity with the high transaction costs and high opportunity costs, and high risk due to trickery and conspiracy over one in which trickery, deceit, and conspiracy are permitted. And this is why no such economic polity exists. 3) But a definition of aggression that includes physical, trickery and deceit, free riding parasitism, and conspiracy can produce property rights, an anarchic polity, and a condition of liberty. Because it is rational to prefer an anarchic polity free of these forms of parasitism over one that has much higher costs. 4) So Rothbardian Non Aggression against ‘physical property’ can’t create a condition of liberty, while classical liberal Non Aggression against ‘demonstrated property’ can create a condition of liberty. 5) What is demonstrated property? Anything you have homesteaded or obtained through productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, and without imposing costs upon the demonstrated property of others. 6) What do people demonstrate as their property? Life, Kin, Mate, Friends, Allies, physical property, territory, built capital, norms, and institutions. 7) What Exceptions are there? Communities produce opportunities by virtue of population density and cooperation in a division of labor while using property rights, and expect members to homestead those opportunities. We call this process of homesteading opportunities ‘competition’. This creating of common opportunities and homesteading them is what produces the virtuous cycle that makes cities (markets) so productive. 8) So how do we create liberty? We create liberty by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from transgression by others, thereby creating the first commons: property rights, or what we loosely call ‘cooperation’. 9) This argument kills the idea of individualism per se and instead states that all rights are possessed by individuals but rights can only be created by an organized polity willing to construct them by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from the imposition of costs. The rest of the talk is largely a criticism of why the NAP failed, and why Rothbard came up with it for cultural reasons. And how the reason he didn’t complete the NAP or write it operationally was to circumvent the logical conclusion that with greater articulation his attempt to avoid payment for the commons would have been exposed.

  • NEW VIDEO: Propertarianism – Correcting and Completing Non Aggression

    “QUESTION:” CURT: DO YOU HAVE A SIMPLE VERSION OF THIS TALK?” Sure. Or, I’ll try hard. wink emoticon 1) The “NAP” that only limits physical aggression leaves open “trickery and deceit’ as well as ‘free riding parasitism’ and ‘conspiracy’. And by leaving open these forms of aggression, the NAP cannot produce property rights, an anarchic polity, or a condition of liberty. 2) It is irrational for other than career criminals to prefer membership in a polity with the high transaction costs and high opportunity costs, and high risk due to trickery and conspiracy over one in which trickery, deceit, and conspiracy are permitted. And this is why no such economic polity exists. 3) But a definition of aggression that includes physical, trickery and deceit, free riding parasitism, and conspiracy can produce property rights, an anarchic polity, and a condition of liberty. Because it is rational to prefer an anarchic polity free of these forms of parasitism over one that has much higher costs. 4) So Rothbardian Non Aggression against ‘physical property’ can’t create a condition of liberty, while classical liberal Non Aggression against ‘demonstrated property’ can create a condition of liberty. 5) What is demonstrated property? Anything you have homesteaded or obtained through productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, and without imposing costs upon the demonstrated property of others. 6) What do people demonstrate as their property? Life, Kin, Mate, Friends, Allies, physical property, territory, built capital, norms, and institutions. 7) What Exceptions are there? Communities produce opportunities by virtue of population density and cooperation in a division of labor while using property rights, and expect members to homestead those opportunities. We call this process of homesteading opportunities ‘competition’. This creating of common opportunities and homesteading them is what produces the virtuous cycle that makes cities (markets) so productive. 8) So how do we create liberty? We create liberty by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from transgression by others, thereby creating the first commons: property rights, or what we loosely call ‘cooperation’. 9) This argument kills the idea of individualism per se and instead states that all rights are possessed by individuals but rights can only be created by an organized polity willing to construct them by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from the imposition of costs. The rest of the talk is largely a criticism of why the NAP failed, and why Rothbard came up with it for cultural reasons. And how the reason he didn’t complete the NAP or write it operationally was to circumvent the logical conclusion that with greater articulation his attempt to avoid payment for the commons would have been exposed.

  • Dear Justices. A Truth. A Warning. A Promise.

    [D]EAR JUSTICES. A TRUTH. A WARNING. A PROMISE. ***Our American Judges have been turned into Nazi Officers with ‘its the law’ a hollow substitute for ‘I was following orders’.*** ***There is only one law: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality, on that which another has obtained by either homesteading of opportunity, or exchange by the same productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of the same externality.*** Everything else is of necessity only an order. If you follow immoral orders you have no escape from our justice. Either you adjudicate natural law, or you issue commands. If you issue commands then you are responsible for your actions. So we pray you take heed how you command our people. We are coming with rifle and guillotine, not pitchfork and noose. And we shall hold you accountable for your commands. I swear upon all my gods, the judiciary will preserve the rule of law or be put to death and replaced by those who shall. Natural Law is sacred.

  • Dear Justices. A Truth. A Warning. A Promise.

    [D]EAR JUSTICES. A TRUTH. A WARNING. A PROMISE. ***Our American Judges have been turned into Nazi Officers with ‘its the law’ a hollow substitute for ‘I was following orders’.*** ***There is only one law: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality, on that which another has obtained by either homesteading of opportunity, or exchange by the same productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of the same externality.*** Everything else is of necessity only an order. If you follow immoral orders you have no escape from our justice. Either you adjudicate natural law, or you issue commands. If you issue commands then you are responsible for your actions. So we pray you take heed how you command our people. We are coming with rifle and guillotine, not pitchfork and noose. And we shall hold you accountable for your commands. I swear upon all my gods, the judiciary will preserve the rule of law or be put to death and replaced by those who shall. Natural Law is sacred.