Curt Doolittle

Source: Facebook

  • THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AGGRESSION We can measure the higher and lower morality o

    THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AGGRESSION

    We can measure the higher and lower morality of groups by the scope of property that they protect from parasitism – non-reciprocity.

    (see “Incremental Suppression”)

    it is always moral for a more moral order of people to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purposes of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results.

    (“Investment in the production of reciprocity”)

    If it is affordable, it is immoral to fail to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purpose of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results. Otherwise one passes the cost to future generations, and increases the risk that in a period of shock or weakness the less moral people may cause either or both a decline in property, or a decline in morality of the more moral people.

    (“Defense against the deceit of claiming conviction when one is practicing mere convenience: externalizing costs to others.”)

    As far as I know, arguing against this position cannot be done except by the non-reciprocal export of costs upon others. In other words, the failure to aggress against immoral orders can only be explained by immoral actions.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:31:00 UTC

  • DO NOTHING YOU’D NEED TO GET AWAY WITH NAP: Do what you can get away with. Natur

    DO NOTHING YOU’D NEED TO GET AWAY WITH

    NAP: Do what you can get away with.

    Natural Law: Do nothing you’d need to get away with.

    How about you defer to natural law instead of making excuses: take no action that imposes a cost upon that which another has invested.

    The problem with ‘nap-pers’ is that by stating non aggression without stating what one must not aggress against, is actually saying ‘do what you can get away with’. That’s what the NAP means, and that’s where rothbard got it from.

    AND THAT IS A FACT. SORRY.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:05:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:01:00 UTC

  • THE PURPOSE OF PHILOSOPHY The purpose of philosophy exists in the need for and i

    THE PURPOSE OF PHILOSOPHY

    The purpose of philosophy exists in the need for and identification of increasingly precise and therefore increasingly parsimonious means of decidability. A means of decidability remains imprecise, and we call that means of decidability a theory. The most parsimonious theory exists in correspondence with existential reality. We name that means of decidability we call a theory constructed in correspondence with reality, “Truth”. Over time, our search for parsimonious decidability causes the falsification of non-correspondent theories and replaces them with correspondent theories. As such, while the purpose of philosophy is to identify theories with which we obtain decidability, the consequence of the practice of philosophy is increasing correspondence with reality, and somewhat like zeno’s tortioise, we approach the truth perpetually but never knowingly reach it because to do so is to state tautology: identity, the most perfect description that humans can possibly utter.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:00:00 UTC

  • THE ADULT VERSION OF NON AGGRESSION Any version of the test of non-aggression va

    THE ADULT VERSION OF NON AGGRESSION

    Any version of the test of non-aggression varies with shared kinship distance at first, shared production distance second, shared norm distance third, shared law third.

    So the ‘law of non aggression” evolves with the density and complexity of the order(population) of cooperation to INCREASING scopes of property: family, property, normative property, and institutional property.

    The “NAP” functions as a child’s reductio (simplistic) version of this more ‘adult’ necessity of cooperation at scale.

    Thus Endeth the Lesson. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 06:15:00 UTC

  • “Out of the dark age following the collapse of the carolingian empire, we got th

    —“Out of the dark age following the collapse of the carolingian empire, we got the most wonderful thing … the recognition that people could form a society without the presence of a state.”—

    Although imprecise its correct. since societies had always existed without a state. But this means a commercial society with property and order could exist without a state. Assuming we had rule of law.

    It’s that last six words and the militia that must speak them that make the difference.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-04 20:27:00 UTC

  • Any version of the test of non-aggression varies with shared kinship distance at

    Any version of the test of non-aggression varies with shared kinship distance at first, shared production distance second, shared norm distance third, shared law third.

    So the ‘law of non aggression” evolves with the density and complexity of the order(population) of cooperation to INCREASING scopes of property: family, property, normative property, and institutional property.

    The “NAP” functions as a child’s reductio (simplistic) version of this more ‘adult’ necessity of cooperation at scale.

    Thus Endeth the Lesson. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-04 20:22:00 UTC

  • “King is a religious title. It means a ruler that has been consecrated by the ch

    —“King is a religious title. It means a ruler that has been consecrated by the church”— Quigley

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-04 20:11:00 UTC

  • I don’t block and unfriend people for bad arguments, but for ridicule in the abs

    I don’t block and unfriend people for bad arguments, but for ridicule in the absence of argument. If you’re gonna waste my time and attention, at least do something of equal effort in order to earn it. 😉 I mean, seriously. conduct a fair trade. lol

    (too many idiots among the libertarians)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-04 19:55:00 UTC

  • THE UNIVERSAL OF GOD THE FATHER “Father -> Grandfather -> Chieftain -> God -> Wo

    THE UNIVERSAL OF GOD THE FATHER

    “Father -> Grandfather -> Chieftain -> God -> Word of god: Law”

    God has written his words in the fabric of the universe.

    Laws of the physical word, -> laws of human ability, -> laws of cooperation, -> laws of beauty.

    These Laws are the means by which the one true god limits the actions of men who follow the many false gods.

    If a man claims a law is the word of god, but it cannot be found in the fabric of the universe, it is not law of god, word of god, but lie of man.

    Those words of men claimed as words of god that are incompatible with the words written by god, are not true – they are merely the words of men. Men who lie with words that are not god’s.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-04 19:51:00 UTC