Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • In P-Law Whose Money Do You Want to Waste?

    In P-Law Whose Money Do You Want to Waste? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/in-p-law-whose-money-do-you-want-to-waste/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 01:18:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266177046465708032

  • In P-Law Whose Money Do You Want to Waste?

    Mar 9, 2020, 1:28 PM

    —“I think an interesting idea as a prerequisite to being able to take someone to court for a violation of reciprocity under P-law would be the requirement that they show up to court “in propria persona” or “pro se,” or more succinctly, no more attorneys. Don’t kill them as Shakespeare suggested, just make it unlawful for them to show up in court except to represent themselves and their own interests.”—

    (good). Or go the other way: use the british method of a barrister, which won’t take a case from solicitor(lawyer) unless it has merit. So in the british model they have, in our terms, professional prosecutors for both sides. In america we have a lot of lawyers and a few prosecutors. It’s more ‘common law’ to take your route. It requires more judges with more skill but yes it will work. I’m not settled on the more adversarial american, or the less dishonest british. What I like about your position is that it’s cheap. What I like about their position is that it’s expensive. I think the judge-judy shows of the world illustrate how ignorant the public is of their own wrong doing. So it depends on whose time we want to waste on idiots: their own money with lawyers, or our money with the court’s.

  • In P-Law Whose Money Do You Want to Waste?

    Mar 9, 2020, 1:28 PM

    —“I think an interesting idea as a prerequisite to being able to take someone to court for a violation of reciprocity under P-law would be the requirement that they show up to court “in propria persona” or “pro se,” or more succinctly, no more attorneys. Don’t kill them as Shakespeare suggested, just make it unlawful for them to show up in court except to represent themselves and their own interests.”—

    (good). Or go the other way: use the british method of a barrister, which won’t take a case from solicitor(lawyer) unless it has merit. So in the british model they have, in our terms, professional prosecutors for both sides. In america we have a lot of lawyers and a few prosecutors. It’s more ‘common law’ to take your route. It requires more judges with more skill but yes it will work. I’m not settled on the more adversarial american, or the less dishonest british. What I like about your position is that it’s cheap. What I like about their position is that it’s expensive. I think the judge-judy shows of the world illustrate how ignorant the public is of their own wrong doing. So it depends on whose time we want to waste on idiots: their own money with lawyers, or our money with the court’s.

  • A Little Debate

    Mar 11, 2020, 8:35 AM

    —“Morality is objective, reciprocity is not. Truth has no bearing on morality, reciprocity totally depends on truth”—Robert Danis

    i cant understand that

    —“that’s okay. I only believe in truth.”—Robert Danis

    i think you’re lying by pretense

    —“One person’s moral compass is different than another person’s moral compass. But the truth is a constant. example I believe abortion is wrong. Why? It not for a moral reason, it’s because in truth you’re stealing the future of someone else. My lens is different than yours I’m an American “I hold these truths to be self-evident” good morals are based on beliefs not truths. Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings. All of this comes from my background, look at what I did for employment.”—

    I can’t tell if you’re unskilled or dishonest. You are conflating moral(decidable, reciprocal), moral norm, and moral preference(choice).

    “…good morals are based on beliefs not truths…”

    Belief = Preference (arbitrary). Your preference of moral preference is based on beliefs and beliefs are arbitrary.

    “Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings”

    Correct. Morality = Reciprocity. Moral norms may or may not be in fact moral. Moral preferences are arbitrary and may or may not be in fact moral. But… disputes over moral norms and moral preferences may be decidable [by test of reciprocity].

    —“I will make it simple for you I don’t think morals have anything to do with reciprocity. I believe reciprocity is based on truth. You can disagree if you want but I’m not going to change because I only believe in truth. You do a lot of writing and say nothing. one person’s morals another person morals are not the same but truth is always the same.”—

    One person’s moral preference varies, just like one person’s interpretation opinion varies, morality like truth is decidable, which is why we have laws, and why laws express moral norms within group, and why reciprocity expresses morality across groups regardless of group preferences. Reciprocity is the structure of the world: personal bias reflects your reproductive strategy, normative bias reflects your group strategy, international uniformity of reciprocity in international law reflects evolutionary necessity. Not because we choose reciprocity. But because reciprocity is the only means of resolving conflicts. In other words, your opinion on the moral, your moral bias, or your moral preference, are just as likely to be false as your opinions on any other subject. The test of whether you are wrong is reciprocity. So: Moral (reciprocity) <- Moral Norm (group discovered reciprocity) <- Moral Preference-Bias (individual search for reciprocity) Give me an example of morality that is not decidable by reciprocity (other than abortion). I am very good at what I do. I am probably the best at what I do. I do not err. I am preventing you from making the false claim that morals are relative, rather than moral bias is simply a preference.

  • A Little Debate

    Mar 11, 2020, 8:35 AM

    —“Morality is objective, reciprocity is not. Truth has no bearing on morality, reciprocity totally depends on truth”—Robert Danis

    i cant understand that

    —“that’s okay. I only believe in truth.”—Robert Danis

    i think you’re lying by pretense

    —“One person’s moral compass is different than another person’s moral compass. But the truth is a constant. example I believe abortion is wrong. Why? It not for a moral reason, it’s because in truth you’re stealing the future of someone else. My lens is different than yours I’m an American “I hold these truths to be self-evident” good morals are based on beliefs not truths. Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings. All of this comes from my background, look at what I did for employment.”—

    I can’t tell if you’re unskilled or dishonest. You are conflating moral(decidable, reciprocal), moral norm, and moral preference(choice).

    “…good morals are based on beliefs not truths…”

    Belief = Preference (arbitrary). Your preference of moral preference is based on beliefs and beliefs are arbitrary.

    “Reciprocity in my opinion deals with truth not the beliefs and not feelings”

    Correct. Morality = Reciprocity. Moral norms may or may not be in fact moral. Moral preferences are arbitrary and may or may not be in fact moral. But… disputes over moral norms and moral preferences may be decidable [by test of reciprocity].

    —“I will make it simple for you I don’t think morals have anything to do with reciprocity. I believe reciprocity is based on truth. You can disagree if you want but I’m not going to change because I only believe in truth. You do a lot of writing and say nothing. one person’s morals another person morals are not the same but truth is always the same.”—

    One person’s moral preference varies, just like one person’s interpretation opinion varies, morality like truth is decidable, which is why we have laws, and why laws express moral norms within group, and why reciprocity expresses morality across groups regardless of group preferences. Reciprocity is the structure of the world: personal bias reflects your reproductive strategy, normative bias reflects your group strategy, international uniformity of reciprocity in international law reflects evolutionary necessity. Not because we choose reciprocity. But because reciprocity is the only means of resolving conflicts. In other words, your opinion on the moral, your moral bias, or your moral preference, are just as likely to be false as your opinions on any other subject. The test of whether you are wrong is reciprocity. So: Moral (reciprocity) <- Moral Norm (group discovered reciprocity) <- Moral Preference-Bias (individual search for reciprocity) Give me an example of morality that is not decidable by reciprocity (other than abortion). I am very good at what I do. I am probably the best at what I do. I do not err. I am preventing you from making the false claim that morals are relative, rather than moral bias is simply a preference.

  • The Need for Three Grammars: Empathic, Rational, Scientific, United by Truth and

    The Need for Three Grammars: Empathic, Rational, Scientific, United by Truth and Reciprocity https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/29/the-need-for-three-grammars-empathic-rational-scientific-united-by-truth-and-reciprocity/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-29 01:00:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1266172507717095424

  • The Need for Three Grammars: Empathic, Rational, Scientific, United by Truth and Reciprocity

    Mar 12, 2020, 12:35 PM THE NEED FOR THREE GRAMMARS: EMPATHIC, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, UNITED BY TRUTH AND RECIPROCITY ( Rik Storey Yes, I understand the Distributist. I understand you.) I understand the search for supernatural theology in theological terms (submission). I understand the search for secular theology in philosophical (cooperation, exchange). I just also understand the search for transcendence in fact by scientific, technological, institutional, and informational means (dominance). I understand the desire for the feminine, for the libertarian, and for the masculine. And I understand that the behaviors of these three emotional(feminine), rational(compromise), and scientific(masculine) methods are reflections of our degrees of agency over emotion, reason, and action, of ourselves, those near us, and the polity. And I have, I think, understood that these three paradigms, vocabulary, logics (Grammars) reflect our interest, willingness and ability to take on increasing scope of material responsibility, and conversely, the reflection of our preference for, willingness, and ability to go along with the herd in peaceful (non-conflict, non adversarial, agreable ) to unpeaceful(conflict, adversarial, disagreeable) means. And I understand how this spectrum of feminine to masculine strategies is merely a reflection of differences in sexual dimorphism, brain structure, body chemistry, class, indoctrination, training, and skill. And I understand that all three are necessary to prevent the horrors of ignorance and dysgenics and decline under abrahamic or any other monopoly. And I understand the externalities of the feminine(submission, empathic), compromise(exchange,rational), and masculine(dominance, scientific). And I understand the market for elites in all three of these, and the change in the power of elites given changes in demographic composition, economic composition, and strategic and military composition. And I understand that preserving the market for elites and their grammars (paradigms, vocabularies, logics), provides both the most aggressive (male), most adaptive(compromise), and the most regressive (female), and that these three markets keep one another in check. And I understand that via positiva feminine (organize on the positive by emotional myth), via practica in the ascendent male (organize on compromise, cooperation, production by contract), and the via negativa masculine (organize limits by law and war) are not in disharmony or conflict as long as they are relegated (LIMITED) to their domains of CAPABILITY, share the natural law. And that indoctrination (emotional children), training (rational young), and education (scientific adults), just like the ethics of rules, of values, and of outcomes, and the family, society, and polity, all consist of rules of scale. And that all of us are evolved to divide the labor of generating demand for some portion of the temporal and scale spectrums between mothers and children in consumption, brothers in trade, and headmen polity and limits. And that the reason we have developed different grammars is to provide each of us with the most precise tools of calculating thought word and deed, in our spectrum of the division of temporal labor and scale. How do I eliminate the abrahamic method of deceit, and make possible a constant set of grammars from theological(non-conflict and consumption ) to philosophical(competition and contract and production) to scientific(conflcit law and war)? This is the issue. Religion is necessary. A submissive religion may be necessary for the agreeable and feminine brain structure, strategy, and class. A secular religion may suffice – which is what the distributist and the continentals are searching for. My understanding is that there are true religions and false. And that there is no need for a false religion. And that is what I am searching for. No falsehood.

  • The Need for Three Grammars: Empathic, Rational, Scientific, United by Truth and Reciprocity

    Mar 12, 2020, 12:35 PM THE NEED FOR THREE GRAMMARS: EMPATHIC, RATIONAL, SCIENTIFIC, UNITED BY TRUTH AND RECIPROCITY ( Rik Storey Yes, I understand the Distributist. I understand you.) I understand the search for supernatural theology in theological terms (submission). I understand the search for secular theology in philosophical (cooperation, exchange). I just also understand the search for transcendence in fact by scientific, technological, institutional, and informational means (dominance). I understand the desire for the feminine, for the libertarian, and for the masculine. And I understand that the behaviors of these three emotional(feminine), rational(compromise), and scientific(masculine) methods are reflections of our degrees of agency over emotion, reason, and action, of ourselves, those near us, and the polity. And I have, I think, understood that these three paradigms, vocabulary, logics (Grammars) reflect our interest, willingness and ability to take on increasing scope of material responsibility, and conversely, the reflection of our preference for, willingness, and ability to go along with the herd in peaceful (non-conflict, non adversarial, agreable ) to unpeaceful(conflict, adversarial, disagreeable) means. And I understand how this spectrum of feminine to masculine strategies is merely a reflection of differences in sexual dimorphism, brain structure, body chemistry, class, indoctrination, training, and skill. And I understand that all three are necessary to prevent the horrors of ignorance and dysgenics and decline under abrahamic or any other monopoly. And I understand the externalities of the feminine(submission, empathic), compromise(exchange,rational), and masculine(dominance, scientific). And I understand the market for elites in all three of these, and the change in the power of elites given changes in demographic composition, economic composition, and strategic and military composition. And I understand that preserving the market for elites and their grammars (paradigms, vocabularies, logics), provides both the most aggressive (male), most adaptive(compromise), and the most regressive (female), and that these three markets keep one another in check. And I understand that via positiva feminine (organize on the positive by emotional myth), via practica in the ascendent male (organize on compromise, cooperation, production by contract), and the via negativa masculine (organize limits by law and war) are not in disharmony or conflict as long as they are relegated (LIMITED) to their domains of CAPABILITY, share the natural law. And that indoctrination (emotional children), training (rational young), and education (scientific adults), just like the ethics of rules, of values, and of outcomes, and the family, society, and polity, all consist of rules of scale. And that all of us are evolved to divide the labor of generating demand for some portion of the temporal and scale spectrums between mothers and children in consumption, brothers in trade, and headmen polity and limits. And that the reason we have developed different grammars is to provide each of us with the most precise tools of calculating thought word and deed, in our spectrum of the division of temporal labor and scale. How do I eliminate the abrahamic method of deceit, and make possible a constant set of grammars from theological(non-conflict and consumption ) to philosophical(competition and contract and production) to scientific(conflcit law and war)? This is the issue. Religion is necessary. A submissive religion may be necessary for the agreeable and feminine brain structure, strategy, and class. A secular religion may suffice – which is what the distributist and the continentals are searching for. My understanding is that there are true religions and false. And that there is no need for a false religion. And that is what I am searching for. No falsehood.

  • Rights don’t exist without numbers.

    Mar 13, 2020, 12:58 PM Rights don’t exist without numbers. Therefore maintain the numbers necessary to create and maintain rights. All rights must be reciprocal or cannot be rights, and are but claims on others to tolerate your irreciprocity and prevent their retaliation against your irreciprocity.

    —“My rights exist completely apart from any “numbers” or your opinion or agreement. Inherent human right to life, privacy and property. No amount of numbers has the right to violate that for me. I don’t have the right to violate those for you.”— A Noob

    You’re demanding behavior from others. To construct a right you must create either a normative or institutional condition under which you have others to appeal to, to enforce it. Natural rights are a desire. They must be brought into existence through production by men. So your desire for rights, or demand for rights, does not mean they exist, any more than a communist’s desire for rights of equidistribution exist. Rights are made by force of men, in normative or institutional form. Moral rights are limited to natural rights: reciprocity. Period. The technique employed in libertarianism presumes that the willingness of the female is transferrable to the male. But it doesn’t. females have intrinsic sexual and reproductive value. Men do not. Men must create reciprocal defense to have value. This is as always the foundational error of all jewish libertarian (Rothbardian) thought: the pretense of the female.

  • Rights don’t exist without numbers.

    Mar 13, 2020, 12:58 PM Rights don’t exist without numbers. Therefore maintain the numbers necessary to create and maintain rights. All rights must be reciprocal or cannot be rights, and are but claims on others to tolerate your irreciprocity and prevent their retaliation against your irreciprocity.

    —“My rights exist completely apart from any “numbers” or your opinion or agreement. Inherent human right to life, privacy and property. No amount of numbers has the right to violate that for me. I don’t have the right to violate those for you.”— A Noob

    You’re demanding behavior from others. To construct a right you must create either a normative or institutional condition under which you have others to appeal to, to enforce it. Natural rights are a desire. They must be brought into existence through production by men. So your desire for rights, or demand for rights, does not mean they exist, any more than a communist’s desire for rights of equidistribution exist. Rights are made by force of men, in normative or institutional form. Moral rights are limited to natural rights: reciprocity. Period. The technique employed in libertarianism presumes that the willingness of the female is transferrable to the male. But it doesn’t. females have intrinsic sexual and reproductive value. Men do not. Men must create reciprocal defense to have value. This is as always the foundational error of all jewish libertarian (Rothbardian) thought: the pretense of the female.