Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547242782 Timestamp) EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A LIE

    1. Rothbard and Hoppe always start with some artificial moral license to property rather than that property produces a division of labor that is more rewarding than predation (for the able) and is the only reason for the able to cooperate, and the only means of cooperation at scale.

    2. In the Free Rider Problem, the answer is that if you are a free rider you are consuming opportunity and resources that could by replaced by those who DO contribute to the commons that they benefit from. This is in fact what people demonstrably do: outcast free riders.

    3. We inherit the investments of our ancestors we do not free ride upon them because they are ours by inheritance, in exchange for persisting the genes, civilization, culture and investments of those previous generations, just as we hope following generations will preserve ours.

    4. —“must therefore be supplied outside the free market, by the coercive force of the government”– No, it is because it is an unsubstitutable good. There is no restitution for lost life nor substitution for risk of life. NONE.

    … I can’t even continue refuting rothbard because it makes me so angry that we have lost two generations to (((more lies))). EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A (((LIE))) DEFENDED BY A HALF TRUTH, AND APPEAL TO REASONABLENESS. …. EVERYTHING. YES, ….. EVERYTHING. Rothbard is only useful in so far as we can study his excellence at Straw Manning, Undue Praise, Pilpul and Critique, and by that study, understand why we moral men are vulnerable to that category of (((lies))). It’s just lies. ROTHBARD IS JUST (((A LIAR))) THAT SUCKERS MIDDLE CLASS YOUNG MEN, LIKE MARXISM WORKING CLASS MEN, LIKE POSTMODERNISM WOMEN AND NON-MEN. Everything he says is false. Study rothbard to learn how to lie, so that we can end lying to our people.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547242138 Timestamp) One can have an interests in the criminally obtained, or the reciprocaly obtained, or obtained by homesteading (creating). Potential Property consists in those interests that have been obtained under the natural law of reciprocity. Property by norm consists of that which others agree not to impose costs upon. Property rights consist of that which is not only norm but insured by a third party to whom you may appeal for enforcement. It is not JUST that one demonstrates property by what he defends – he demonstrates INTEREST by what he defends, but he cannot defend an interest that which was produced by crime or deceit without violating the natural law of reciprocity. I think what seems circular to you is that you’re not starting with reciprocity first, then evolving property from it, and instead, trying to (impossibly) evolve reciprocity from interest. Reciprocity > demonstrated interest > agreement on scope (property) > insurance of scope (rights)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547242782 Timestamp) EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A LIE

    1. Rothbard and Hoppe always start with some artificial moral license to property rather than that property produces a division of labor that is more rewarding than predation (for the able) and is the only reason for the able to cooperate, and the only means of cooperation at scale.

    2. In the Free Rider Problem, the answer is that if you are a free rider you are consuming opportunity and resources that could by replaced by those who DO contribute to the commons that they benefit from. This is in fact what people demonstrably do: outcast free riders.

    3. We inherit the investments of our ancestors we do not free ride upon them because they are ours by inheritance, in exchange for persisting the genes, civilization, culture and investments of those previous generations, just as we hope following generations will preserve ours.

    4. —“must therefore be supplied outside the free market, by the coercive force of the government”– No, it is because it is an unsubstitutable good. There is no restitution for lost life nor substitution for risk of life. NONE.

    … I can’t even continue refuting rothbard because it makes me so angry that we have lost two generations to (((more lies))). EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A (((LIE))) DEFENDED BY A HALF TRUTH, AND APPEAL TO REASONABLENESS. …. EVERYTHING. YES, ….. EVERYTHING. Rothbard is only useful in so far as we can study his excellence at Straw Manning, Undue Praise, Pilpul and Critique, and by that study, understand why we moral men are vulnerable to that category of (((lies))). It’s just lies. ROTHBARD IS JUST (((A LIAR))) THAT SUCKERS MIDDLE CLASS YOUNG MEN, LIKE MARXISM WORKING CLASS MEN, LIKE POSTMODERNISM WOMEN AND NON-MEN. Everything he says is false. Study rothbard to learn how to lie, so that we can end lying to our people.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547242138 Timestamp) One can have an interests in the criminally obtained, or the reciprocaly obtained, or obtained by homesteading (creating). Potential Property consists in those interests that have been obtained under the natural law of reciprocity. Property by norm consists of that which others agree not to impose costs upon. Property rights consist of that which is not only norm but insured by a third party to whom you may appeal for enforcement. It is not JUST that one demonstrates property by what he defends – he demonstrates INTEREST by what he defends, but he cannot defend an interest that which was produced by crime or deceit without violating the natural law of reciprocity. I think what seems circular to you is that you’re not starting with reciprocity first, then evolving property from it, and instead, trying to (impossibly) evolve reciprocity from interest. Reciprocity > demonstrated interest > agreement on scope (property) > insurance of scope (rights)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547744006 Timestamp) PROPERTY IN TOTO, RECIPROCITY, AND THE NECESSITY OF VIOLENCE by Lucas Cort (via brandon hayes) (curtd: this is flawless) Property in toto (demonstrated property) provides a measurement of what humans value. Demonstration of value occurs in human action, when individuals or groups show a willingness and ability to defend said value. The use of violence ensures retention of property and acts as a deterrent against future violations. People can choose the strategies of cooperation, predation, parasitism, or non cooperation. Cooperation with strict adherence to reciprocity being the optimal strategy for long term productive interactions. Reciprocity entails non imposition of costs against others property in toto, through productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers. Violations of reciprocity lead to conflict due to asymmetrical imposition of costs. Predation being short term and parasitism being a medium term strategy. Retaliation cycles ensue violations, revealing the need for third party assessment and resolution, including enforcement between parties. This gives rise to the discovery and evolution of Law, an insurer of last resort (polity/government), and the militia. These institutions and discoveries are created and upheld through the use of violence, creating disincentives for violations of reciprocity. Through this incremental domestication of man we maintain group cooperation and reap the surpluses that ensue. Resulting in the rapid evolution and competitive edge of the society at large.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547744006 Timestamp) PROPERTY IN TOTO, RECIPROCITY, AND THE NECESSITY OF VIOLENCE by Lucas Cort (via brandon hayes) (curtd: this is flawless) Property in toto (demonstrated property) provides a measurement of what humans value. Demonstration of value occurs in human action, when individuals or groups show a willingness and ability to defend said value. The use of violence ensures retention of property and acts as a deterrent against future violations. People can choose the strategies of cooperation, predation, parasitism, or non cooperation. Cooperation with strict adherence to reciprocity being the optimal strategy for long term productive interactions. Reciprocity entails non imposition of costs against others property in toto, through productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers. Violations of reciprocity lead to conflict due to asymmetrical imposition of costs. Predation being short term and parasitism being a medium term strategy. Retaliation cycles ensue violations, revealing the need for third party assessment and resolution, including enforcement between parties. This gives rise to the discovery and evolution of Law, an insurer of last resort (polity/government), and the militia. These institutions and discoveries are created and upheld through the use of violence, creating disincentives for violations of reciprocity. Through this incremental domestication of man we maintain group cooperation and reap the surpluses that ensue. Resulting in the rapid evolution and competitive edge of the society at large.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547759554 Timestamp) Teach Reciprocal and we will end Proportional.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1547759554 Timestamp) Teach Reciprocal and we will end Proportional.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548087791 Timestamp) THE VIA NEGATIVA COST OF THE RELIGION OF THE LAW —“Law by Natural Law of Reciprocity consists as a set of ideas of falsification which do not require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use, but rather demands that you cannot do this, no matter what, and this requirement acts as the cost for inclusion and use.”—Curtus Maximus (perfect argument)

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1548087791 Timestamp) THE VIA NEGATIVA COST OF THE RELIGION OF THE LAW —“Law by Natural Law of Reciprocity consists as a set of ideas of falsification which do not require belief in, testimony to, or action according to, one or more falsehoods as a cost of inclusion and use, but rather demands that you cannot do this, no matter what, and this requirement acts as the cost for inclusion and use.”—Curtus Maximus (perfect argument)