Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW) Metaphysic

    QUICK TRANSLATION BEWEEN PHILOSOPHY AND PROPERTARIANISM (NATURAL LAW)

    Metaphysics: Realism, naturalism, operationalism, empiricism, survival, compatibilism, cooperation, propertarianism, acquisitionism, action.

    Operationalism: testimony in operational terms (one continuous consistent commensurable system of falsifiable measurement)

    Science: testimony in empirical terms (observation of demonstrated evidence) expressed in a commensurable terms (operational).

    Ontology: realism/naturalism, soft determinism, three faculties: physical, intuitionistic, and mind as motion(no name for it in philosophical terms: experience consists of continuous recursive hierarchical temporal memory – memory of memory continuously constructed by continuous prediction from sequences of sense perception.) the problem is getting people from the observer to perception consisting of change (action) not state.

    Epistemology: Competition between justification(hypothesis), operation(theory) and empiricism(evidence) at increasing scales (self-reason via positiva-justification, via-negativa and via-positiva-tests, via-negativa market survival)

    Truthfulness: Due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, deceit, in performative, promissory testimony in complete sentences that are consistent, correspondent, operational, limited, complete, and coherent.

    Axiology: value: acquisitionism: acquisition of property in toto defined by demonstrated interest (IOW self reported values never reflect demonstrated preference, and demonstrated preference can always be expressed as acquisition of property in toto -a gain yielding a fully commensurable system of measurement),

    Ethics: Reciprocity – via negativa, all ethnical and moral questions are decidable by tests of fully accounted reciprocity.

    In other words: I’m describing economics. Which, as others have stated before me, appears to function as the union of the disciplines.

    Philosophy: Do we think philosophy produces Truth, Meaning, or Choice? As far as I can tell Law, Economics, Science, Mathematics, and the human logical facility (differences in constant relations) produce testimony. As far as I can tell The Grammars (which you don’t know yet) produce the most parsimonious paradigm. Philosophy considers ideals, rarely if ever costs, means of production(models), possibilities(consequences and externalities). So what is the remaining function of philosophy? Reorganization of preferences and means of achieving them given the truth we have identified with “science in toto”: (law, economics, science, math, logical facility).

    In other words, discovery of truth (science) selection of preference (philosophy), sedation or abandonment (theology).

    Which makes sense to me since Math(measurement) Science(matter) and Economics(people) produce evidence, law produces testimony and decidability independent of preference, and philosophy produces preference, and as far as I can tell theology allows people to escape the work of philosophy, law, and science – leading to graceful failure as our knowledge and ability decreases from science to norm or law, to philosophy, to theology.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-19 20:13:00 UTC

  • RECIPROCITY AND IRRECIPROCITY Reciprocity: productive, fully informed, voluntary

    RECIPROCITY AND IRRECIPROCITY

    Reciprocity: productive, fully informed, voluntary transfer, of demonstated interests, free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality, and warranted, within the limits of restitutability.

    Irreciprocity: Failing any one of the criteria for Reciprocity.

    MORAL(ETHICAL) SPECTRUM

    … … … … Evil – interpersonal, extrapersonal, irreciprocity without gain (harm for harm’s sake)

    … … … Immoral – extrapersonal irreciprocity at gain

    … … Unethical – interpersonal irreciprocity at gain

    … Criminal – direct irreciprocity at gain

    Amoral – no affect on others at gain.

    … Recirpocal – direct reciprocity at gain

    … … Ethical – interpersonal reciprocity at gain

    … … … Moral – extrapersonal reciprocity at gain

    … … … … Good – interpersonal, extrapersonal, reciprocity without gain (investment, for investment’s sake)

    The constant relation in the spectrum is reciprocity by distance self, direct, indirect

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-19 09:39:00 UTC

  • You can’t defend women – it’s a NAXALT fallacy no matter what you do. You can on

    You can’t defend women – it’s a NAXALT fallacy no matter what you do. You can only suggest how to create reciprocity in a relationship. In other words, you can’t correct a criticism without justifying it, so the only solution is to provide solutions.

    ( We do this all the time. )

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 22:21:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229893760017981442

    Reply addressees: @TennyTennison2

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229893322979889155

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @TennyTennison2 No, the men are overcompensating to correct the overcompensation by feminists and postmodernists. The problem is that it’s almost impossible for a woman to say much that is distinguishable from NAXALT and resulting marxist, postmodernist, feminist science denialism. https://t.co/Tb2VIJvhaK

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/1229893322979889155

  • NATURAL RIGHTS Technically speaking, market demand for the production of a commo

    NATURAL RIGHTS

    Technically speaking, market demand for the production of a commons(institution) that creates natural rights of appeal for defense before an insurer of some sort (court), demonstrably exist. The market demand exists. Sure. Like any commons, markets succeed or fail at producing them.

    As far as I know, the only natural right that is possible is reciprocal insurance of sovereignty against trespass(imposition of costs upon our demonstrated interests), in life(mind, body, family), liberty (privacy, movement, action, word, display, association, cooperation, production), estate (demonstrated interest, several property, share property, common property, capital), and defense (security, of life, liberty, estate).

    So Natural Rights: “Reciprocity in Sovereignty, Life, Liberty, Property, and Defense” created by “An insurer to whom one can appeal for restitution, prevention, punishment of offenders.”

    Lock didn’t get it right unfortunately.

    We can further enumerate each of these rights in order to prevent others from attempts to usurp them through sophistry and deceit.

    The declaration of human rights contains a lot of nonsense like ‘dignity’, mostly duplication, and at the end, impossible aspirations that cannot be construed as rights,

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 20:30:00 UTC

  • Reciprocity is the only reason for the strong and able to permit the weak and la

    Reciprocity is the only reason for the strong and able to permit the weak and lacking ability. Truth is merely reciprocity in word. Conversely denying reciprocity would claim parasitism and predation were tolerable for some reason – like our middle class is exterminated today.

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-18 00:17:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229560437403942912

    Reply addressees: @SgtD_isBack

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229558131786682368

  • The Natural Law of European People in Most Reductive Form

    The Natural Law of European People in Most Reductive Form https://propertarianism.com/2020/02/17/the-natural-law-of-european-people-in-most-reductive-form/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-02-17 22:30:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1229533590427512833

  • The Natural Law of European People in Most Reductive Form

    (getting close to most reductive and complete form)SOVEREIGNTY REQUIRES RECIPROCITYReciprocity in Nature:  ( …cooperation and consciousness … ) Reciprocity in Deed(Actions): Due Diligence in tests of productive, fully informed[6], voluntary transfer[7] of demonstrated interests[2] within the limits of proportionality[4], free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality[8]; and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability[5]. Reciprocity in Word(Speech): Due Diligence in categorical and internal consistency within the limits of human faculties; operationally possible within the limits of human abilities, empirically correspondent within the limits of realism, naturalism and operationalism, rational within the limits of bounded rationality[1], reciprocal in rational choice, and fully accounted within stated limits. If you cannot pass those tests you cannot claim to engage in reciprocity in display, word, or deed. If you cannot engage in reciprocity you are either ignorant or ir-reciprocal. Even if you are ignorant, once informed, and continue you are ir-reciprocal. DECIDABILITY We may boycott(separate) if not a threat, cooperate(cohabitate) if we can, or prey(war) upon one another if we must. Since all irreciprocity constitutes free riding, parasitism, or predation, the only reason to let another individual or group exist, is reciprocity – all others are not only enemies, but devolutionary, and prohibiting the transcendence of man into the gods we imagined. This is the Natural Law. EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY: An Entrepreneurial Militia, Using Technology, Adaptability, Maneuver, and Speed Under Contractual Warfare, Oath, Duty, Loyalty Status in exchange for Heroism, Wealth, Excellence, Beauty With Differences adjudicated by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Under Natural Law of Reciprocity, Jury, Thang or Senate, King as judge of last resort. Leaving only survival in markets for everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polity, defense, and war. Causing suppression of the reproduction of the less able, and the devotion of the savings in surplus to the production of commons, and the disproportionate returns on the commons. And devoting high investment to the raising of our offspring to produce and defend the commons. (…) Transcendence of man into gods the gods we imagined. THE LAW OF OPTIMUM POLITIES A Power distribution of the Natural law(Suppression of Parasitism); A Pareto Distribution of Assets (organize voluntary production); A Nash Distribution of Rewards (Market Income); An Egalitarian Distribution of Commons (Earnings); At the cost of A Suppression of Reproduction of the Demonstrated Underclasses (Eugenics); Equal Distribution of Defense of all of the above. And Zero Tolerance for Violation of any of the above (Intolerance). EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION The history of western civilization consists of the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by use of the west’s unique, empirical, common, judge discovered natural law. Western Man domesticated himself just as he had plants and animals before. And both our aristocracy our people profited from the process. But, man was not exploited — he was domesticated from a animal to a human through generations of cultural selection pressure and aggressive culling of malcontents and free riders. OPTIMUM HUMAN ORDER There is no more coherent or successful nor possibly superior means for humans to evolve into the gods we imagine, with each generation living in the optimum conditions while doing so. ENFORCEMENT “So perhaps you don’t understand. This isn’t a negotiation. This isn’t a compromise. These are demands. We will restore our sovereignty, and leave you in peace, or we will conquer, enslave, or kill you – and all like you – until your consent is no longer required.” === Definitions:

    1. Bounded Rationality: man is not omniscient, omnipotent, or free or error, and seeks practical action in satisfaction of wants within his limits rather than optimums.

    2. Demonstrated Interest: man demonstrates continuous consumption, acquisition, preservation. Anything man demonstrates an interest in consuming, acquiring, preserving, whether by action or refraining from action, constitutes a demonstrated interest. In P law we categories demonstrated interest as Property-in-toto when referring to individuals or Capital-in-toto when referring to commons and we enumerate all categories of both under the definition of property-in-toto.

    3. Operational, Operationalism: possible to perform and speak of performing, a sequence of subjectively testable human actions. where subjectively testable means by imitating (physical), sympathizing (thinking), empathizing (feeling).

    4. Limits of Proportionality: incentive to defect given predictable future given accumulated results of reciprocal display word and deed. (Defense against systemic undermining).

    5. Restitutability: the possibility of restitution, and sufficient resources to perform restitution.

    6. Fully Informed: Reciprocal in Speech (testimony).

    7. Voluntary Transfer: loss, consumption, transfer of possession, right, or title

    8. Negative Externality: involuntary transfer against the demonstrated intersets of those not involved in the action or exchange.

  • The Natural Law of European People in Most Reductive Form

    (getting close to most reductive and complete form)SOVEREIGNTY REQUIRES RECIPROCITYReciprocity in Nature:  ( …cooperation and consciousness … ) Reciprocity in Deed(Actions): Due Diligence in tests of productive, fully informed[6], voluntary transfer[7] of demonstrated interests[2] within the limits of proportionality[4], free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others by externality[8]; and warrantied, within the limits of restitutability[5]. Reciprocity in Word(Speech): Due Diligence in categorical and internal consistency within the limits of human faculties; operationally possible within the limits of human abilities, empirically correspondent within the limits of realism, naturalism and operationalism, rational within the limits of bounded rationality[1], reciprocal in rational choice, and fully accounted within stated limits. If you cannot pass those tests you cannot claim to engage in reciprocity in display, word, or deed. If you cannot engage in reciprocity you are either ignorant or ir-reciprocal. Even if you are ignorant, once informed, and continue you are ir-reciprocal. DECIDABILITY We may boycott(separate) if not a threat, cooperate(cohabitate) if we can, or prey(war) upon one another if we must. Since all irreciprocity constitutes free riding, parasitism, or predation, the only reason to let another individual or group exist, is reciprocity – all others are not only enemies, but devolutionary, and prohibiting the transcendence of man into the gods we imagined. This is the Natural Law. EUROPEAN GROUP STRATEGY: An Entrepreneurial Militia, Using Technology, Adaptability, Maneuver, and Speed Under Contractual Warfare, Oath, Duty, Loyalty Status in exchange for Heroism, Wealth, Excellence, Beauty With Differences adjudicated by Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth, Under Natural Law of Reciprocity, Jury, Thang or Senate, King as judge of last resort. Leaving only survival in markets for everything: association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, polity, defense, and war. Causing suppression of the reproduction of the less able, and the devotion of the savings in surplus to the production of commons, and the disproportionate returns on the commons. And devoting high investment to the raising of our offspring to produce and defend the commons. (…) Transcendence of man into gods the gods we imagined. THE LAW OF OPTIMUM POLITIES A Power distribution of the Natural law(Suppression of Parasitism); A Pareto Distribution of Assets (organize voluntary production); A Nash Distribution of Rewards (Market Income); An Egalitarian Distribution of Commons (Earnings); At the cost of A Suppression of Reproduction of the Demonstrated Underclasses (Eugenics); Equal Distribution of Defense of all of the above. And Zero Tolerance for Violation of any of the above (Intolerance). EUROPEAN CIVILIZATION The history of western civilization consists of the incremental suppression of parasitism from all walks of life by use of the west’s unique, empirical, common, judge discovered natural law. Western Man domesticated himself just as he had plants and animals before. And both our aristocracy our people profited from the process. But, man was not exploited — he was domesticated from a animal to a human through generations of cultural selection pressure and aggressive culling of malcontents and free riders. OPTIMUM HUMAN ORDER There is no more coherent or successful nor possibly superior means for humans to evolve into the gods we imagine, with each generation living in the optimum conditions while doing so. ENFORCEMENT “So perhaps you don’t understand. This isn’t a negotiation. This isn’t a compromise. These are demands. We will restore our sovereignty, and leave you in peace, or we will conquer, enslave, or kill you – and all like you – until your consent is no longer required.” === Definitions:

    1. Bounded Rationality: man is not omniscient, omnipotent, or free or error, and seeks practical action in satisfaction of wants within his limits rather than optimums.

    2. Demonstrated Interest: man demonstrates continuous consumption, acquisition, preservation. Anything man demonstrates an interest in consuming, acquiring, preserving, whether by action or refraining from action, constitutes a demonstrated interest. In P law we categories demonstrated interest as Property-in-toto when referring to individuals or Capital-in-toto when referring to commons and we enumerate all categories of both under the definition of property-in-toto.

    3. Operational, Operationalism: possible to perform and speak of performing, a sequence of subjectively testable human actions. where subjectively testable means by imitating (physical), sympathizing (thinking), empathizing (feeling).

    4. Limits of Proportionality: incentive to defect given predictable future given accumulated results of reciprocal display word and deed. (Defense against systemic undermining).

    5. Restitutability: the possibility of restitution, and sufficient resources to perform restitution.

    6. Fully Informed: Reciprocal in Speech (testimony).

    7. Voluntary Transfer: loss, consumption, transfer of possession, right, or title

    8. Negative Externality: involuntary transfer against the demonstrated intersets of those not involved in the action or exchange.

  • Sorry But Science Solved Morality – Morality Is Closed.

    —“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—

    [T]his is a justificationary position (sophism). |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential) [S]cience (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends. What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal. Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced. All truth propositions are falsificationary. All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally. All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity. All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality). All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes. All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions. All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production. We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically. There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms. That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement. Period. If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else. As far as I know, the question of Morality is closed. You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.

  • Sorry But Science Solved Morality – Morality Is Closed.

    —“so yes, science can tell us what is but not what we ought to do.”—

    [T]his is a justificationary position (sophism). |Decidability| = That which is not irreciprocal or false (negatively consequential) -> Value (personal strategy -> Positively Consequential) -> Preference (Inconsequential) [S]cience (law) tells us what we may not do (irreciprocity) – that which is unethical, and immoral. Anything that is not unethical and immoral is merely a PREFERENCE to be settled in the market competition for means and ends. What we ‘ought’ to do is anything we CAN organize voluntarily TO DO that which is not false or irreciprocal. Even so, we can just as equally test positive moral claims by the investments that you make, the externalities caused, and desired outcomes produced. All truth propositions are falsificationary. All moral claims are merely claims that one acts not immorally. All moral propositions, means, and outcomes are testable by reciprocity. All moral propositions are open to triangulation of the returns on investments (compare by ordinality if not cardinality). All moral propositions are decidable by adversarial competition in markets for voluntary production of moral outcomes, given scarcity and competition for means and outcomes. All markets produce empirical results, and as such are scientific. All epistemological questions are the result of falsification by adversarial competition. All moral questions are epistemological questions. All not-evil-immoral-unethical propositions are amoral, ethical, or good, depending upon the means of organizing their production, the structure of their production, and the returns on that production. We can make a claim to means, externalities, or ends, or all three. We can measure the claim, the means, the ends – all three, and do so scientifically. There is nothing in metaphysics, language, psychology, or sociology that cannot be expressed scientifically in these terms. That is a purely scientific statement. Conversely you cannot deny or falsify this statement. Period. If you don’t use these terms one can claim ignorance, on can claim expediency(cost), but one cannot claim anything else. As far as I know, the question of Morality is closed. You can try to create test after test but you will find no test that fails this test.