Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • PROPERTY IN TOTO, RECIPROCITY, AND THE NECESSITY OF VIOLENCE by Lucas Cort (via

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-17 11:53:00 UTC

  • IT’S ALL JUST IMPLEMENTING IT NOW. Watching the talk with Augustus Invictus and

    IT’S ALL JUST IMPLEMENTING IT NOW.

    Watching the talk with Augustus Invictus and Richard Heathen and realizing that it’s obvious to me that propertarianism is ‘COMPLETED’. I was talking to someone this morning who said “You are finished. I can see it in your eyes. you aren’t struggling to find words or means of communicating ideas any longer.” Nick said this a bit ago so I assume he noticed first. But yeah, the cake is baked. Fork in it. Complete. Ready to go. Ready for way.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-14 12:24:00 UTC

  • EVERYTHING ROTHBARD SAYS IS A LIE 1. Rothbard and Hoppe always start with some a

    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.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 16:39:00 UTC

  • One can have an interests in the criminally obtained, or the reciprocaly obtaine

    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)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-11 16:28:00 UTC

  • QUESTIONS: FREE MARKET VS RECIPROCAL CAPITALISM by ‎Noah J Revoy‎ Let’s compare

    QUESTIONS: FREE MARKET VS RECIPROCAL CAPITALISM

    by ‎Noah J Revoy‎

    Let’s compare the trope “Free Markets” of Free Market Capitalism with “Reciprocal Markets”, of Reciprocal Market Capitalism.

    Or stated differently, lets compare the IDEAL good of free markets regardless of externality – particularly knowledge, fixed, cultural, and genetic capital, with the MEASURED good of reciprocal markets under rule of law that prohibits the consumption privatization, or destruction, of such precious capital.

    QUESTIONS:

    1. How would you describe the differences between Reciprocal Capitalism as proposed under a propertarianism model and Free Market Capitalism as promoted by libertarians?

    2. What problems does Reciprocal Capitalism solve (vs Free Markets)?

    3. What are the libertarians missing?

    4. How could Reciprocal Capitalism help solve some of the moderate lefts concerns about markets?

    5. Both the left and the right have problems with the current “Free Market Capitalism” as practiced in the west. (Free market is a poor descriptor as its not truly free and often not even a real set of markets).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 09:48:00 UTC

  • As far as I know, the natural law of reciprocity is simply a statement of moral

    As far as I know, the natural law of reciprocity is simply a statement of moral intuition, and moral intuition is nothing but a statement of reciprocity. they should be identical. If they aren’t then someone is lying,cheating, stealing, or preying upon someone else.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-10 00:53:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083164976607571968

    Reply addressees: @MusaVaino @DataDistribute

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083163450178707456

    IN REPLY TO:

    @MusaVaino

    @curtdoolittle @DataDistribute Yes I can respect that. I am 2/3 trough of the propertarian institute videos. Interesting stuff! I think you are addressing a very real and interesting problem. Propertarianism seems to regulate morality through law. Can men still be good at heart if they just follow your law?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1083163450178707456

  • by William Douglas Watson Since people are willing fight for religious beliefs (

    by William Douglas Watson

    Since people are willing fight for religious beliefs (defend), they are considered property in toto. That means they should not be infringed upon if they are compatible with the rest of civilization.

    Curt has no interest in hindering our right to practice our religion, only in hindering the use of ANY METHOD to perform or advocate for theft (parasitism).

    He hasn’t always done a good job of making this clear (recently he has been trying to clarify) but that is not his job.

    His job is to write law. Our job is to make the law digestible for others.

    In a propertarian society we would have much greater religious freedom to actually live out our faith. Real freedom of association (positiva) would be restored because we would have freedom to disassociate (negativa).

    So, as an example, you could no longer be forced to bake cakes that advocated for “alternative lifestyles”.

    This is just a quick example of a current hot button issue but if you give it some thought I’m sure that you could find many other examples where we, as Christians, would benefit from the restoration of just this one aspect of natural law.

    (cd: approved)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-07 15:59:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW ON RELIGION You can do what you want in your head, but you cannot do

    NATURAL LAW ON RELIGION

    You can do what you want in your head, but you cannot do what you want in the commons. Under natural law we would close all temples and mosques, prohibit their literature, prohibit their evangelism, and prohibit all religious display (separatism). Under natural law we would restore the church by empowering churches (dramatically) in exchange for reform, and only those churches with reform, and those that reformed would take up new generations and those that not, end with the old.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-07 08:53:00 UTC

  • “High average IQ in a polity creates confidence that individuals you interact wi

    —“High average IQ in a polity creates confidence that individuals you interact with are not constrained to non-reciprocal behavior”–Micah Pezdirtz

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 15:00:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1081928461260914688

  • “High average IQ in a polity creates confidence that individuals you interact wi

    —“High average IQ in a polity creates confidence that individuals you interact with are not constrained to non-reciprocal behavior”–Micah Pezdirtz

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-06 10:00:00 UTC