Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Why Does Reciprocity Make Libertarians Butthurt?

    Jan 26, 2020, 8:57 AM

    —“I shared some Curt Doolittle posts about reciprocity and libertarians got extremely butthurt. Why is that? When I started talking about the cultivation of self, of yourself as a man, my “friends” from secret groups started trying to get me to denounce what I said and repent in public. Sjw-like behavior. But why?””—Christopher M Matthews

    Because rothbardian libertarianism is an SJW-targeted system of thought, argued with SJW logic, producing another Abrahamic cult of sophism. There is only one source of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and that is the natural law of reciprocity, insured by all able bodied men bearing arms. There is nothing more to be said. Libertarians won’t pay for the commons, because like those whose immoral ethics and sophomoric reasoning they imitate, they want to parasitically free ride upon the payment for commons by others, just as if they were wandering sheepherders or hunter gatherers with no necessity or responsibility of land holding. They don’t somehow grasp, despite some economic understanding, that one must produce sufficient commons to defend against the strongest opponent in the market for territory, polity, and order of their preference. So, those that produce greater commons in one way or another (whether predatory, parasitic, or productive) defeat those that do not produce commons sufficient to compete with them. Ergo, the market demands at least sufficient funding of commons to preserve sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and it turns out that holding territory sufficient to create a condition of sovereignty is expensive. That is why all those who’ve failed are gone. It’s why there are at present something like 500 dead gods – the tombstones of peoples who failed.

  • Why Does Reciprocity Make Libertarians Butthurt?

    Jan 26, 2020, 8:57 AM

    —“I shared some Curt Doolittle posts about reciprocity and libertarians got extremely butthurt. Why is that? When I started talking about the cultivation of self, of yourself as a man, my “friends” from secret groups started trying to get me to denounce what I said and repent in public. Sjw-like behavior. But why?””—Christopher M Matthews

    Because rothbardian libertarianism is an SJW-targeted system of thought, argued with SJW logic, producing another Abrahamic cult of sophism. There is only one source of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and that is the natural law of reciprocity, insured by all able bodied men bearing arms. There is nothing more to be said. Libertarians won’t pay for the commons, because like those whose immoral ethics and sophomoric reasoning they imitate, they want to parasitically free ride upon the payment for commons by others, just as if they were wandering sheepherders or hunter gatherers with no necessity or responsibility of land holding. They don’t somehow grasp, despite some economic understanding, that one must produce sufficient commons to defend against the strongest opponent in the market for territory, polity, and order of their preference. So, those that produce greater commons in one way or another (whether predatory, parasitic, or productive) defeat those that do not produce commons sufficient to compete with them. Ergo, the market demands at least sufficient funding of commons to preserve sovereignty, liberty, and freedom, and it turns out that holding territory sufficient to create a condition of sovereignty is expensive. That is why all those who’ve failed are gone. It’s why there are at present something like 500 dead gods – the tombstones of peoples who failed.

  • Defense Is Not Substitutable.

    Jan 26, 2020, 4:25 PM

    —“I was wondering about how the natural law of reciprocity would handle the current divide on gun rights/safety? On one hand, safety is an intangible asset but guns are an asset as well.”—

    Defense is not substitutable. One cannot warranty another’s life. Therefore any attempt to deprive others of the right to bear arms is a violation of reciprocity. it’s the most basic of applications of the law. there is nothing to it. “can you warranty my life? No only I can.” “can you warranty the natural law without arms? No. We can warranty others non violation of it.” “can you warranty you will not violate the natural law? You can’t. I can warranty your non-violation of it.” Edit

  • Defense Is Not Substitutable.

    Jan 26, 2020, 4:25 PM

    —“I was wondering about how the natural law of reciprocity would handle the current divide on gun rights/safety? On one hand, safety is an intangible asset but guns are an asset as well.”—

    Defense is not substitutable. One cannot warranty another’s life. Therefore any attempt to deprive others of the right to bear arms is a violation of reciprocity. it’s the most basic of applications of the law. there is nothing to it. “can you warranty my life? No only I can.” “can you warranty the natural law without arms? No. We can warranty others non violation of it.” “can you warranty you will not violate the natural law? You can’t. I can warranty your non-violation of it.” Edit

  • It”s Not Just Reciprocity: The Method

    It”s Not Just Reciprocity: The Method https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/its-not-just-reciprocity-the-method/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:12:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264982737141850114

  • It”s Not Just Reciprocity: The Method

    Jan 26, 2020, 4:41 PM IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD When you’re testing for reciprocity ask: 1 – Is it productive? Do we both have more capital under subjective value after the transfer or not? 2 – Is it fully informed? Meaning, truthful and complete. 3 – Is it voluntary a voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests? 4 – Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? 5 – Is the other party warrantying that it is productive, fully informed, voluntary, and free of externality? 6 – Is it restitutable if it is warrantied? Meaning is is possible to perform restitution, and is the other party capable of paying restitution? For example: WHEREAS; Party A wants to deny party B the right to bear arms. WHERE; 1. Is it productive? Well no. It’s an attempt to reduce some harm at the cost of enabling another harm, but there is a difference in preference over the choice of bearing those harms. 2. Is it fully informed? Well no. It’s an attempt to circumvent accounting for the tradeoff in risks, under the pretense that a preference is equal to a truth. 3. Is it voluntary. Well no, it is involuntary or the question would not arise. 4. Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? Well, no, not limiting the right to bear arms imposes costs (risk) upon those who might be harmed by those with arms, and limiting it imposes costs (risk) upon those who defend self family commons and government from usurpation. 5. Is it warrantied and warrantable. No. Neither side can warrantee the other. 6. Is it restitutable. No life is not restitutable wither in defense of rights or in defense of self. 7. Can an alternate solution be made? Of course. Pay the cost of protecting your interests rather than depriving others of the right to protect their interests. THEREFORE 9. The alternative solution is (a)to have those people who wish to bear the risk of a disarmed public pay for their defense, or (b) for those who wish change to finance and move to a separate geography with different limits. This is a cursory treatment but you get the idea.

  • It”s Not Just Reciprocity: The Method

    Jan 26, 2020, 4:41 PM IT”S NOT JUST RECIPROCITY: THE METHOD When you’re testing for reciprocity ask: 1 – Is it productive? Do we both have more capital under subjective value after the transfer or not? 2 – Is it fully informed? Meaning, truthful and complete. 3 – Is it voluntary a voluntary transfer of demonstrated interests? 4 – Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? 5 – Is the other party warrantying that it is productive, fully informed, voluntary, and free of externality? 6 – Is it restitutable if it is warrantied? Meaning is is possible to perform restitution, and is the other party capable of paying restitution? For example: WHEREAS; Party A wants to deny party B the right to bear arms. WHERE; 1. Is it productive? Well no. It’s an attempt to reduce some harm at the cost of enabling another harm, but there is a difference in preference over the choice of bearing those harms. 2. Is it fully informed? Well no. It’s an attempt to circumvent accounting for the tradeoff in risks, under the pretense that a preference is equal to a truth. 3. Is it voluntary. Well no, it is involuntary or the question would not arise. 4. Is it free of imposition of costs by externality on the demonstrated interests of others? Well, no, not limiting the right to bear arms imposes costs (risk) upon those who might be harmed by those with arms, and limiting it imposes costs (risk) upon those who defend self family commons and government from usurpation. 5. Is it warrantied and warrantable. No. Neither side can warrantee the other. 6. Is it restitutable. No life is not restitutable wither in defense of rights or in defense of self. 7. Can an alternate solution be made? Of course. Pay the cost of protecting your interests rather than depriving others of the right to protect their interests. THEREFORE 9. The alternative solution is (a)to have those people who wish to bear the risk of a disarmed public pay for their defense, or (b) for those who wish change to finance and move to a separate geography with different limits. This is a cursory treatment but you get the idea.

  • Baiting Into Hazard Works by Suggestion vs The Founders on Inalienabilty Under N

    Baiting Into Hazard Works by Suggestion vs The Founders on Inalienabilty Under Natural Law https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/25/baiting-into-hazard-works-by-suggestion-vs-the-founders-on-inalienabilty-under-natural-law/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-25 18:12:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1264982584766935045

  • Baiting Into Hazard Works by Suggestion vs The Founders on Inalienabilty Under Natural Law

    Jan 27, 2020, 5:54 AM BAITING INTO HAZARD WORKS BY SUGGESTION VS THE FOUNDERS ON INALIENABILTY UNDER NATURAL LAW Inalienability means you can’t give up certain rights even ifyou want to, because by doing so you give up obligations to others. This means that the cowardly, weak, unable, and those lacking agency can defect and destroy ‘natural rights under natural law’. —“John Mark discusses lying to the public in his videos. but web search manipulation and subconscious/subliminal programming is much more vague. deceiving ppl by encouraging people to put themselves in harms way is discussed, like for example the message to give up your 2A rights, but what if that encouragement is subtle and subliminal? are you familiar with how it works in advertising?”—Brian Avran It’s called (a) false promise (b) baiting into hazard. And there is a reason why the tribe specializes in comedy, script writing, gossiping, and undermining, INSTEAD of offering a competitive solution. Edit

  • Baiting Into Hazard Works by Suggestion vs The Founders on Inalienabilty Under Natural Law

    Jan 27, 2020, 5:54 AM BAITING INTO HAZARD WORKS BY SUGGESTION VS THE FOUNDERS ON INALIENABILTY UNDER NATURAL LAW Inalienability means you can’t give up certain rights even ifyou want to, because by doing so you give up obligations to others. This means that the cowardly, weak, unable, and those lacking agency can defect and destroy ‘natural rights under natural law’. —“John Mark discusses lying to the public in his videos. but web search manipulation and subconscious/subliminal programming is much more vague. deceiving ppl by encouraging people to put themselves in harms way is discussed, like for example the message to give up your 2A rights, but what if that encouragement is subtle and subliminal? are you familiar with how it works in advertising?”—Brian Avran It’s called (a) false promise (b) baiting into hazard. And there is a reason why the tribe specializes in comedy, script writing, gossiping, and undermining, INSTEAD of offering a competitive solution. Edit