Curt Doolittle

Form: Definition

  • LIBERTY, FREEDOM AND SUBSIDY VIA NEGATIVA: NON INTERFERENCE WITH SOVEREIGNTY Sov

    LIBERTY, FREEDOM AND SUBSIDY VIA NEGATIVA: NON INTERFERENCE WITH SOVEREIGNTY

    Sovereignty requires no liberty. Liberty requires permission of the sovereigns. Freedom permission of both. And subsidy so desirable by women and the underclasses is only available by the success of all three.

    Ergo, liberty and ‘libertarianism’ are sandwich-board signs worn by beggars.

    If you want an condition of liberty, the only way to obtain it is through sovereignty, and the only way to obtain sovereignty is with violence. And the only way to obtain sufficient violence to construct a condition of sovereignty, is ally with others who equally desire sovereignty.

    If you want subsidy, freedom, or liberty, then the only solution is to at least not interfere with the production of sovereignty.

    Why? Because rule is a profitable, honorable, moral, heroic occupation the consequences of which determine the outcome of not just nations, but civilizations – and all of mankind.

    I do not begrudge payment to my betters in exchange for liberty or freedom or subsidy. I begrudge only those payments which deny me the privileges of sovereignty I pay for: liberty, freedom, and subsidy

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 15:10:00 UTC

  • AVOIDANCE OF EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR AS COGNITIVE SOLIPSISM: INABILITY TO DISTINGUIS

    AVOIDANCE OF EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR AS COGNITIVE SOLIPSISM: INABILITY TO DISTINGUISH EXPERIENCE FROM EXISTENCE.

    The deceit is in failing to use EXISTENTIAL GRAMMAR, the same way we use gender-grammar, or temporal grammar, or locational grammar.

    Not sure why it’s so hard for people to grasp this concept.

    Not quite sure why people want to rely on the pretense of ‘god mode’ to make their statements.

    or rather, I think it is a form of cognitive solipsism: inability to separate the self from existence.

    Actually, that’s what I”m going to call it: cognitive solipsism.

    Just as so many women cannot distinquish between experience and consequence, some people cannot distinquish between experience and existence.

    cognitive solipsism.

    Not sure if it’s a developmental disorder, or a failure of maturity, or an uneven evolutionary distribution of intellectual capacity… hmmm…..

    (edit: added)

    Existential Grammar is only important once an individual makes claims to truth because of a premise or conclusion. Now, I’might argue that it’s necessary to ensure you’re not making a mistake, but then, meaning for the purpose of ideation and testimony for the purpose of warrantying due diligence prior to making a truth claim are different things. So I would hope that people would grasp that almost all philosophical arguments I run across are SOPHOMORIC because of nothing more than trickery accomplished by conflation by using the verb to-be to make existential and deducible claims, rather than simply using existential grammar and making the fraudulent claim to existential ‘authority’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 13:45:00 UTC

  • Definition: Natural Law

    PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law) Thou shalt not, by word, deed, absence of word or deed, impose or allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

    NOTE: Fully understanding this one law may also require: 1) the knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest. 2) the definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against *and* have demonstrated an interest. 3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services. If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really). This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.

  • Definition: Natural Law

    PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law) Thou shalt not, by word, deed, absence of word or deed, impose or allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

    NOTE: Fully understanding this one law may also require: 1) the knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest. 2) the definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against *and* have demonstrated an interest. 3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services. If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really). This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.

  • WHERE DO RIGHTS COME FROM? Rights CAN only exist as contract rights. Rights are

    WHERE DO RIGHTS COME FROM?

    Rights CAN only exist as contract rights.

    Rights are brought into existence when a third party insures the terms of a normative, commercial, or political contract (usually brothers, extended family, a chieftain, set of elders, king, or government).

    We can NEED those rights.

    We can WANT those rights.

    We can DEMAND those rights.

    But those rights can only be brought into existence by a group of insurers. And those insurers insure them by force.

    Anyone who says otherwise is lying, engaging in wishful thinking, fantasizing, stupid, or ignorant.

    PERIOD.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 11:28:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN I define Natural Law as: NEGATIVA: non-provocation:

    NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN

    I define Natural Law as: NEGATIVA: non-provocation: non imposition of costs against property in toto: that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in without imposing costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in. POSITIVA: reward: the requirement that we limit our actions that affect the property-in-toto of others to those that cause productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 10:39:00 UTC

  • I use class as a {set} of values: CLASS: } ….genetic class (physical symmetry,

    I use class as a {set} of values:

    CLASS:

    }

    ….genetic class (physical symmetry, health, intelligence etc)

    ….reproductive class (reproductive desirability)

    ….associative class (associative cooperative desirability)

    ….social class (regional ethnicity, family structure, values, manners, ethics, morals, traditions, myths)

    ….occupational class (occupational achievement)

    ….economic class (economic achievement)

    ….political class (fame: entertainment / political achievement)

    }

    The effects of each class are cumulative.

    It’s pretty scary how accurate this measure is.

    I don’t weight economic or political at all – they’re outliers.

    If you want to create a simulation you start with this model and build out.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 11:45:00 UTC

  • THEORY VS FACT VS A PRIORI This is one of those things that i have to explain ov

    THEORY VS FACT VS A PRIORI

    This is one of those things that i have to explain over and over again.

    1) THEORY: we are capable of only one epistemological method (EM) of describing cause and effect relations:

    observation > free association > idea > wayfinding > hypothesis > criticism > theory > public criticism > law > survival in widespread application > incorporation into normative metaphysical value judgements.

    2) A FACT: A fact is a special case of the EM, in which we create an hypothesis, theory, and law to describe an OBSERVATION.

    3) THE A PRIORI: an apriori is a special case of the EM in which once we discover an hypothesis, we cannot imagine a false condition (I use the incidence of prime numbers as an example of special cases). Almost all non-reductio apriori statements fail unless they also include limits and full accounting. this does not prevent the use of apriori concepts. it limits that which can be deduced from apriori statements to ‘very little’.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 10:54:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY IN ETHICS AND MORALITY All NECESSARY cross-group ethical, and moral

    DECIDABILITY IN ETHICS AND MORALITY

    All NECESSARY cross-group ethical, and moral propositions are decidable by reciprocity (natural law).

    All NORMATIVE in group ethical and moral propositions are decidable by natural law if they are not decidable by normative means.

    All PREFERENTIAL interpersonal ethical and moral propositions are decidable by normative means, if they are not decidable by personal means. If not decidable by normative means, then by natural law.

    LEGiSLATIVE AND REGULATORY LAW has absolutely nothing to do with whether a proposition is ethical or moral – AT ALL. This is despite the fact that common law evolved, religous law evolved, state law evolved, and legislative law evolved, to resolve interpersonal, inter familial, inter tribal, inter class, and inter national conflicts.

    Most questions of ethics are the result of nothing other than conflation of that which is local and different into that which is universal as an attempt to claim authority for one’s personal, normative, or national preferences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-04 11:56:00 UTC

  • Rational != Rationalism. SERIES: REASON Imaginable > Reasonable > Rational > Rat

    Rational != Rationalism.

    SERIES: REASON

    Imaginable > Reasonable > Rational > Rationalism > Logical > Mathematical > Identitarian: the sequence of testing methods of internal consistency.

    SERIES: SCIENCE

    While they say it poorly, science makes use of the tests of:

    > internal consistency (logical)

    > external consistency (empirical repeatability)

    > existential consistency (operational definitions)

    > scope consistency (full accounting, limits, parsimony)(falsification)

    Social science should add:

    > reciprocal consistency (moral)

    So just as we can say that there exists a discipline called mathematics in which we test axiomatic systems consisting of the dimensions {identity(naming), number(arith.), ratio(math), distance(space), and movement (calculus)}, and just as there is a means by which we test rational systems{(see above)}, we can also say that there exists a discipline called truth, which we call ‘science’ that tests existential rather than axiomatic dimensions{(see above)}.

    So science exists as the largest test of reality (causal relations).

    Rationalism exists as a test only of internal verbal consistency (semantic relations).

    Logic exists as a test of internal consistency (set relations).

    And mathematics exists only as a test of relational consistency (constant relations).

    So yes, science exists just as mathematics, logic, and rationalism do.

    And science is to all other disciplines as calculus is to arithmetic: an increase in the dimensions tested by the method.

    TRUTH

    The truth of a proposition is permanently uncertain in science, although, while knowable, the physical sciences we do not know the first principles of the universe, meaning the base entities, operations and limits of the universe. We can test the operations of humans by subjective sympathy – which is where mises went wrong. So we can test even if we cannot yet quantify, the limits of human thought instrumentally. We can test social science under the test of reciprocity (productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, limited to productive externalities). So we can test the physical, personal, and social sciences using the SERIES I listed above.

    Truth = a statement that survives.

    Testimony = testimony that survives.

    Only people can testify that they speak truthfully.

    They cannot know they speak the truth – in the sense of most parsimonious description possible – they can only know that they have performed due diligence against the series above (science), and that their utterance has survived those tests.

    SPECIFICS

    —“The truth value here is not placed on a conclusion, but on a method.”—

    The warranty against falsehood is placed upon survival of tests of due diligence. To make the statement ‘truth value’ is a categorical error similar to applying probability to asymmetric distributions (fat tails). you cannot calculate a probability from an unknown scope. Just as you a bell curve is always false, a probability is alway false, and a truth statement is always false. We can know we speak truthfully but we cannot know we speak the truth, nor can we quantify truth.

    BLAME

    we evolved reason from the common law, aristotelian reason from advances in the common law, and empiricism from advances in the common law. Because the law involved ‘skin in the game’ between aristocratic warriors and their staff, servants, and protectorate, it could not so easily be subverted by excuse making as could religious and philosophical reasoning.

    Moral sentiments evolved out of the needs of cooperation, and so did moral rules. Law evolved to codify moral rules. If one adhered to religious, moral, or legal rules, one can be forgiven for error. This is the source of JUSTIFICATIONARY reasoning.

    But that reasoning is precisely what delayed the development of science, which does not depend upon prior positive assertions, but the discovery of truth propositions by trial and error, by a relentless evolutionary increase in precision.

    The error you are making in your arguments is called ‘justificationism’. It went out with the end of the 19th century.

    There is another error you are making that went out with the 19th century, and that is that I suspect you confuse proof (possibility) with truth (causality). A proof != Truth. We use the term ‘true’ allegorically, and that is all

    There is yet another error you make and that is to resort to internal consistency instead of expanding into empiricism and then falling back to internal consistency only after you have failed to test the higher standard. This is actually a form of deception commonly employed – although in your case I suspect its merely ignorance and error.

    —“Yes, but then there can not be really a definition of the Outcome Ethics, because the knowledge how to bring the mentioned outcomes would have to be a part of the definition.”—

    But that’s not really true, now is it.

    If we possess the knowledge to test outcomes, then we may make use of outcome ethics.

    If we do not we may resort to rule ethics.

    If we do not have rules we may resort to virtue ethics.

    If we do not have a virtue ethic we can resort to moral introspection.

    Morality is serves as a form of law under which we do not hold one another accountable for our errors if we act according to those rules.

    We do not hold children, the young, adults, and non specialists for the ethics required of those with specialized knowledge.

    Conversely we DO hold accountable those with specialized knowledge in areas of specialized knowledge.

    So one of the tests of honesty (truthfulness) is whether one uses both the situational information available to him, and the ethical systems available to him, given his knowledge of a particular discipline.

    Conversely we treat as dishonest those who use lower standards of ethics, lower methods of reasoning, that make use of less information, as a means of justifying their arguments rather than eliminating the risk to others by testing at the limits of one’s knowledge.

    Furthermore, this is why the left won: we held to the lie that men merely err. The left succeeded by the construction of convincing lies.

    Rothbard certainly constructed as convincing a set of lies as did marx and the neocons.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 20:03:00 UTC