Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Math versus Natural Law — the Same?

    Math versus Natural Law — the Same? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/28/math-versus-natural-law-the-same-2/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-28 04:17:11 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1265859641180934144

  • P Law Expressed in Mathematics

    Apr 14, 2020, 4:37 PM A very smart guy understands how to express P-Law in Mathematics. (I think in geometry, but he’s got it right). — Billy Law-Bregan — In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining? — CurtD — Smart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy. — Billy Law-Bregan — I get it, I think. In law, the radix exists as actionable references. Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required (radix economy) required express it in that particular base (in this case, actionable references. So continuous recursive disambiguation exists as the tool to teach that efficiency. Something else fell into place for me. I said that the radix exists as actionable references. And, Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required to express it in that particular base (actionable references). I think it does something else, too. The radix determines the magnitude of a particular system and represents the value of that system. Moreover, it determines the maximum value of the referents used in the system. E.g. Octagonal base type. Radix (r) = 8. Maximum value of referent exists as 0 to (r)-1. Therefore, maximum value of referent = 7. So, in octagonal base, 428 exceeds the limit of (r), which makes it ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false? (I think). So, I think that In Natural Law, as in mathematics, the radix (accountable references) determine the maximum value/limits of the operations, transformations, positional comparison, test of agreement, and Testimony. Anything that exceeds the limit of (r) exists as inflationary/ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false. I think this also explains why the verb “to be” creates problems in reporting. The various conjugations of the verb violate the magnitude/value/limit determined by the radix. –CurtD– Well done. 😉 You know you have a phd subject right there that unites philosophy mathematics and law. 😉 ===NOTE=== This exchange is in response to this post: MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME? Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals. See? Here: Human Logical Facility (constant relations) > …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) > …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) > …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) > …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) > …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) > …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)

  • P Law Expressed in Mathematics

    Apr 14, 2020, 4:37 PM A very smart guy understands how to express P-Law in Mathematics. (I think in geometry, but he’s got it right). — Billy Law-Bregan — In Natural Law, what would represent the radix? Moreover, as in mathematics where the radix point separates integers from fractionals, would you say in Natural Law the radix point exists between ordinary language and opining? — CurtD — Smart. Good thinking. Good question. In mathematics the radix is the base set of names of positions (nouns), before restoring to positional naming (multipliers of the base: phrases). The grammar of mathematics adds the possible operations (verbs), all of which are variations on addition or its reverse, subtraction (transformations), and the only possible tests of positional comparison, less, equal, or greater (equilibria), an the only possible test of agreement (truth, false, undecidable) In law, the equivalent of radix (base nouns) consist of the vocabulary of actionable references given human facility for sensation, perception, intuition (nouns, names, referents), the vocabulary of operations (verbs, thought word and deed), and the possible changes in state (transformations), and the and the only possible tests comparison (possibility) and only possible test of agreement (empiricism-observation-action, logic-consistency-intuition-word, and experience-sense-perception-autoassociation ). So yes the human grammatical facility, and the structure of grammar, the structure of transactions with that grammar(journal), and the epistemology of the story(ledger) is the same across every one of the grammars from deflationary (math) to functional (programming) to operational (natural law) to ordinary language to the inflationary grammars of narratives, fictions, fictionalisms, and deceits. MATH: Actor (presumed), associated reference (object named by positional name), name of referent – number (positional name), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. LAW: Actor, Action (name of human action), associated reference (object), transformation, change in state, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total. STORY: name of referent – actor, action, transformation, consequence, external consequence, repeat, sum, total All grammars are the same and accounting, finance, and economics are the least error prone methods of describing human action. In this sense, law asks us for a full accounting of human actions so that we can test whether the statements are testifiable (fully accounted) or not, and if not, then how they are not fully accounted, and by deduction, why they aren’t. (ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, loading-farming, suggestion-obscurantism-overloading, the fictionalisms of sophistry, pseudoscience, or the occult, or outright deceit. Ergo P-law fits in the sequence: arithmetic, accounting, programming, natural law, economics, group strategy. — Billy Law-Bregan — I get it, I think. In law, the radix exists as actionable references. Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required (radix economy) required express it in that particular base (in this case, actionable references. So continuous recursive disambiguation exists as the tool to teach that efficiency. Something else fell into place for me. I said that the radix exists as actionable references. And, Testimony (full accounting) exists as the most efficient number of steps required to express it in that particular base (actionable references). I think it does something else, too. The radix determines the magnitude of a particular system and represents the value of that system. Moreover, it determines the maximum value of the referents used in the system. E.g. Octagonal base type. Radix (r) = 8. Maximum value of referent exists as 0 to (r)-1. Therefore, maximum value of referent = 7. So, in octagonal base, 428 exceeds the limit of (r), which makes it ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false? (I think). So, I think that In Natural Law, as in mathematics, the radix (accountable references) determine the maximum value/limits of the operations, transformations, positional comparison, test of agreement, and Testimony. Anything that exceeds the limit of (r) exists as inflationary/ambiguous/nonsensical/undecidable/false. I think this also explains why the verb “to be” creates problems in reporting. The various conjugations of the verb violate the magnitude/value/limit determined by the radix. –CurtD– Well done. 😉 You know you have a phd subject right there that unites philosophy mathematics and law. 😉 ===NOTE=== This exchange is in response to this post: MATH VERSUS NATURAL LAW — THE SAME? Math is a logic of positional naming, and Natural law a logic of Property Naming. The grammar of both Math and Law consists of operations on names. So in math we use operations to maintain balance (equilibrium) on both sides of an equal’s sign, and in natural law we use operations to maintain balance between individuals. See? Here: Human Logical Facility (constant relations) > …. Human Language Facility (sequence of sounds) > …. …. Human Grammar Facility (rules of continuous recursive disambiguation) > …. …. …. Grammars (deflationary <- ordinary -> inflationary) > …. …. …. …. Math (positional names) > …. …. …. …. …. Programming (procedural names) > …. …. …. …. …. …. Natural Law (human actions) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Ordinary Language (utility) > …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Opining (Loading, Framing) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictions (adding what’s not there) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Fictionalisms (sophistry pseudoscience, supernaturalism) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Deceit (lying) …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Denial …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. …. Silence (Notice: Note how I left out verbal logic, rationalism, and philosophy because they’re included in sophistry.)

  • The New Constitution Disambiguates Rights, Obligations, and In-Alienabilities

    May 8, 2020, 10:22 AM ARTICLE III – Rights and Obligations Under the Law

    1. Rights and Obligations Under The Natural Law of Reciprocity

    2. Rights and Obligations Under Contracts of The Commons (note that all legislation is now correctly disambiguated as a contract adjudicable under the natural law, rather than peer to the natural law)

    3. Rights and Obligations Under Military Order
      (executives cannot issue orders, only the military)

    4. Rights and Obligations Under Monarchical Command
      (if there is a monarch)

    This is important to the ‘scalable’ model of government

  • The New Constitution Disambiguates Rights, Obligations, and In-Alienabilities

    May 8, 2020, 10:22 AM ARTICLE III – Rights and Obligations Under the Law

    1. Rights and Obligations Under The Natural Law of Reciprocity

    2. Rights and Obligations Under Contracts of The Commons (note that all legislation is now correctly disambiguated as a contract adjudicable under the natural law, rather than peer to the natural law)

    3. Rights and Obligations Under Military Order
      (executives cannot issue orders, only the military)

    4. Rights and Obligations Under Monarchical Command
      (if there is a monarch)

    This is important to the ‘scalable’ model of government

  • Closure on The Abortion Discussion

    May 24, 2020, 12:23 PM P lands with:

    “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”

  • Closure on The Abortion Discussion

    May 24, 2020, 12:23 PM P lands with:

    “In the cases of killing in war, capital punishment in justice, suicide in suffering, euthanasia in old age or illness, infanticide in defect, and abortion in utero, we (polities) develop norms, traditions, and laws that permit us to terminate life when the consequences of not doing so are more than we can pay restitution for. The only outlier among these is abortion where (a) woman is as in control of her uterus as a man is in control of his violence – so why is she not as accountable for abortion as a man is for accidental murder, and (b) the outcome of the child’s life is unknown. As such we make these decisions empirically. And we are too forgiving of women in this subject as we are too forgiving (coddling) of women in all others. Why? Because we are biologically and traditionally if not consciously aware that women have lower agency than men, but that they are intrinsically more valuable and less disposable than men.”

  • Is the State Moral?

    Oct 1, 2019, 10:43 AM

    —“Dear mr Doolittle, How can the state, based on extortion and theft, be reciprocal? Real question. Not some goofy troll. Kind regards”— Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    The state enforces order (cooperation) sufficient to deny competitors access to the territory, resources, people, their production, and networks of productivity and trade. And to deny internal inhibitors to the income necessary to pay for it. It does this by suppressing local … … rent seeking, corruption, and transaction costs, and centralizing these returns as ‘taxation’, where concentration of that income can be devoted to the production of commons and the multipliers produced by such commons. this creates opportunity for centralized corruption … … and alliance with the state against the people, but without exception, the returns on state vs non-state are obvious: non state’s cannot and do not exist. Even those claimed by ‘libertarians’ are just borderlands defended by states or empires, investing in settlement by … … permissiveness we translate as liberty. Since settlers provide claims to territory which can be defended by arms, because in fact, they are investing in that territory, and reciprocity is the only international natural law that we can observe. We defend what we invest in. The only means of policing the state that we know of is rule of law through the courts of universal standing in matters both private and common.We have had this revoked by the state during the modern period, and we’ve been disintermediated from the courts as our means of defense. Democracy can never control anything other than voting an oligarchy into or out of office. Its insufficient for policy or defense because representatives are not required to state terms of contract before they enter office. So with democracy, disintermediation from the courts … … the only remaining method of insurance of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and reciprocity is the militia and revolt. So the state must and can collect fees for defense, and the courts. It cannot compete unless it can collect fees for investment in the commons. Paying such people richly if small in number reduces their chances of corruption. But allowing them to buy votes through … … redistribution; and provides finance and internationals (large scale) with access to rents, rather than locals whose rents were suppressed (small scale), merely shifting the problem from many distributed rent seekers to fewer larger centralized rent seekers. This would appear to be a null trade, but it’s not, since suppression of local corruption and rent seeking provides the economic velocity that makes finance and internationals possible. So we must simply repeat the process of using the courts and the law to suppress … … new, larger organizations of rent seekers and corruption. And this process never ends. Man invents. So men will invent new means of rents and corruption, and other men will use the market for the suppression of parasitism that we call the courts and the law to stop them. In this sense the (positive ) market for goods, services, and information is the one we are most aware of. We are somewhat aware of the government (not state) as a market for commons. But of equal import is the (negative) market for the suppression of ir-reciprocity … … whether in the market for consumption (goods services information) or the market for multipliers (commons) we call government. Technically speaking the ‘state’ consists of the assets of the polity and the law its regulator, and the government a means of producing commons. Where commons includes the state and its holdings and the means of defense whether military, judicial or sheriff. Collectively the government and the state also provide the services of an insurer of last resort. The problem is maintaining its role as insurer, investor, … … and resolver of disputes, while not allowing the public to demand redistributions that limit their responsibility rather than insurance that retains it. I hope that is enough of a picture for you. No you can’t live statelessly except in a desert, tundra, or artic waste. That’s why no one has or does. I suppose that like many people who can consume information for entertainment and status you assume man is moral, rather than amoral, and choosing the moral and immoral as incentives provide. We can in fact read others. However history says that reading creates moral behavior … … not that moral behavior is intuitive. As anyone who has raised children finds rather obvious.

  • Is the State Moral?

    Oct 1, 2019, 10:43 AM

    —“Dear mr Doolittle, How can the state, based on extortion and theft, be reciprocal? Real question. Not some goofy troll. Kind regards”— Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    The state enforces order (cooperation) sufficient to deny competitors access to the territory, resources, people, their production, and networks of productivity and trade. And to deny internal inhibitors to the income necessary to pay for it. It does this by suppressing local … … rent seeking, corruption, and transaction costs, and centralizing these returns as ‘taxation’, where concentration of that income can be devoted to the production of commons and the multipliers produced by such commons. this creates opportunity for centralized corruption … … and alliance with the state against the people, but without exception, the returns on state vs non-state are obvious: non state’s cannot and do not exist. Even those claimed by ‘libertarians’ are just borderlands defended by states or empires, investing in settlement by … … permissiveness we translate as liberty. Since settlers provide claims to territory which can be defended by arms, because in fact, they are investing in that territory, and reciprocity is the only international natural law that we can observe. We defend what we invest in. The only means of policing the state that we know of is rule of law through the courts of universal standing in matters both private and common.We have had this revoked by the state during the modern period, and we’ve been disintermediated from the courts as our means of defense. Democracy can never control anything other than voting an oligarchy into or out of office. Its insufficient for policy or defense because representatives are not required to state terms of contract before they enter office. So with democracy, disintermediation from the courts … … the only remaining method of insurance of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and reciprocity is the militia and revolt. So the state must and can collect fees for defense, and the courts. It cannot compete unless it can collect fees for investment in the commons. Paying such people richly if small in number reduces their chances of corruption. But allowing them to buy votes through … … redistribution; and provides finance and internationals (large scale) with access to rents, rather than locals whose rents were suppressed (small scale), merely shifting the problem from many distributed rent seekers to fewer larger centralized rent seekers. This would appear to be a null trade, but it’s not, since suppression of local corruption and rent seeking provides the economic velocity that makes finance and internationals possible. So we must simply repeat the process of using the courts and the law to suppress … … new, larger organizations of rent seekers and corruption. And this process never ends. Man invents. So men will invent new means of rents and corruption, and other men will use the market for the suppression of parasitism that we call the courts and the law to stop them. In this sense the (positive ) market for goods, services, and information is the one we are most aware of. We are somewhat aware of the government (not state) as a market for commons. But of equal import is the (negative) market for the suppression of ir-reciprocity … … whether in the market for consumption (goods services information) or the market for multipliers (commons) we call government. Technically speaking the ‘state’ consists of the assets of the polity and the law its regulator, and the government a means of producing commons. Where commons includes the state and its holdings and the means of defense whether military, judicial or sheriff. Collectively the government and the state also provide the services of an insurer of last resort. The problem is maintaining its role as insurer, investor, … … and resolver of disputes, while not allowing the public to demand redistributions that limit their responsibility rather than insurance that retains it. I hope that is enough of a picture for you. No you can’t live statelessly except in a desert, tundra, or artic waste. That’s why no one has or does. I suppose that like many people who can consume information for entertainment and status you assume man is moral, rather than amoral, and choosing the moral and immoral as incentives provide. We can in fact read others. However history says that reading creates moral behavior … … not that moral behavior is intuitive. As anyone who has raised children finds rather obvious.

  • Q: How Can Violence Be Reciprocal (moral)?

    Oct 1, 2019, 11:38 AM

    —“How can violence be reciprocal?”—Sietze Bosman @fryskefilosoof

    1. Returning violence is and act of reciprocity.

    2. Forcing Restitution and if necessary punishment (disincentive for repetition), restores reciprocity.

    3. Preemptive violence insures against ir-reciprocity.

    COUNSEL: Always use a series of at least 3 to 5 when analyzing propositions. Using series – which is what I teach – disambiguates and prevents errors of conflation when using ideal types and fallacies of construction such as ‘principles’. Most sophistry in philosophy consists of using ideal rather than serialized (enumerated) definitions; using the verb to be rather than the means of existence; conflating points of view between the observer, actor, and acted upon; and failing to construct complete sentences in testimonial (promissory) grammar, using operational terms. You will find that this is one of the points of demarcation between theology, philosophy, moralizing, and testimony (what we call science): disambiguation and operationalization into complete promissory sentences will rapidly demonstrate that almost all philosophical questions are sophisms. Witticisms. Nonsense. Puzzles. Riddles. But nothing more.