Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALM

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG (REALLY)

    Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’.

    And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)).

    And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.

    And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics.

    IT’S NOT COMPLICATED
    Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations.

    But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals).

    Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms.

    So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures.

    the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary.

    So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit.

    There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*.

    That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable.

    The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities.

    In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade.

    Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 17:08:17 UTC

  • REBUTTALS OF A THEIST 1) Law, particularly western empirical law of tort, under

    REBUTTALS OF A THEIST

    1) Law, particularly western empirical law of tort, under presumption of sovereignty and therefore demand for reciprocity existed before idealism (mathematics), criticism (socrates), justification (plato), and empiricism (Aristotle), and their concluding movement (Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Roman Law). (Despite Augustine’s attempt to combine jewish law’s justificationism using pilpul and critique, with the greek thinkers use of idealism, and abandoning the result of the greek experiment: roman law, empiricism, stoicism, epicureanism, and tolerance for local cult and custom. )

    1) —“Rebutting the claims of an existing creator?”—

    Means, motive, opportunity, evidence, method of argument.

    The motive is to create a lie using false threats and promises to provide the individual with immunity from the labor of reason, accept his position in life, and act obediently to priests, in exchange for monies (and in europe, lands). While at the same time ending the practice of literacy and preserving literacy only within the authoritarian system of deceits.

    2) —“Or refuting the resurrection theory?”—

    Means, motive, opportunity, evidence, method of argument.

    Evidence is that this was all compiled from preexisting myths, and other than some otherwise indiscriminate fellow being crucified for agitating against the profiteering by jewish priests, the rest of the story is a fabrication, not the least of which was initiated by Saul of Tarsus.

    People love to buy drugs.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 14:53:00 UTC

  • WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG (REALLY) Any cr

    WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG (REALLY)

    Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’.

    And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)).

    And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.

    And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics.

    IT’S NOT COMPLICATED

    Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations.

    But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals).

    Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms.

    So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures.

    the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary.

    So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit.

    There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*.

    That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable.

    The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities.

    In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade.

    Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 13:08:00 UTC

  • FRAMING A HOSTILE DISCOURSE: WHAT DO YOU WANT AND WHAT WILL YOU EXCHANGE FOR IT?

    FRAMING A HOSTILE DISCOURSE: WHAT DO YOU WANT AND WHAT WILL YOU EXCHANGE FOR IT?

    ( Once you memorize these ten points you can use them as replies one at a time as you see fit. )

    Well before we start, let’s state the obvious.

    1) Cooperation is only valuable until it’s not. Cooperation ceases being valuable when alternatives are preferable. The alternatives are preferable for me and mine, regardless of whether they are preferable for you and yours. Ergo: there is no ‘we’.

    2) I cooperate with my family, kin, friends, associates, partners, and allies with whom I share mutually beneficial interests. I am not your family, kin, friend, associate, partner, or ally, but your enemy, and you are mine until demonstrated otherwise.

    3) In other words, I start with the presumption that you are of no value, or worse, a parasite or worse, a predator, and that your pleasure or pain, life or death, are irrelevant to me and mine I discover some reason that you and yours’ non-existence is preferable to your existence.

    4) I solve, and consider moral and ethical for me and mine, only that which is in the interest of me and mine, regardless of whether it is in the interest of you and yours.

    5) As such I solve only for truthful, fully informed, voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges in the absence of all attempts at harm, theft, coercion, fraud, free riding.

    6) As such criticism, ridicule, shaming, putting words in my mouth, mis-framing my statements, lying, rallying, gossiping, and threats of non-cooperation, or even open hostility are irrelevant to me. They are just attempts at theft, fraud, free riding, and deprivation of opportunity to cooperate with you – despite my and mine’s lack of interest in cooperating with you.

    7) All that matters is what you and yours will exchange with me and mine that benefits me and mine.

    8) If not, Civil War, Separation, Conquest and Genocide are preferable to the status quo.

    9) Again, Cooperation is only valuable until it’s not, and conflict is preferable to parasitism and predation. So either we are seeking a set of truthful, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, free of imposition of cost upon others by externality, or you are seeking to engage in theft, fraud, parasitism, or predation.

    10) So what is it you want, and what are you willing to trade for it?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 15:30:00 UTC

  • Cooperation is an investment that has non-zero risk

    —“Cooperation is an investment that has non-zero risk. If you want people to cooperate with you rather than fight or avoid you, you must mitigate that risk. If you instead try to shame people for your lack of ability to mitigate their risk, they are left with the only options of fight or flight. However, cooperation amplifies the standard of living of a polity, so people would rather live around those they can cooperate with rather than fight/flight. You can only compel people to flee you for so long until the cost of non-cooperation exceeds the cost of fighting (destroying) you to increase the proximity density of people who cooperate at low risk.”— Steve Pender

  • Cooperation is an investment that has non-zero risk

    —“Cooperation is an investment that has non-zero risk. If you want people to cooperate with you rather than fight or avoid you, you must mitigate that risk. If you instead try to shame people for your lack of ability to mitigate their risk, they are left with the only options of fight or flight. However, cooperation amplifies the standard of living of a polity, so people would rather live around those they can cooperate with rather than fight/flight. You can only compel people to flee you for so long until the cost of non-cooperation exceeds the cost of fighting (destroying) you to increase the proximity density of people who cooperate at low risk.”— Steve Pender

  • “Cooperation is an investment that has non-zero risk. If you want people to coop

    —“Cooperation is an investment that has non-zero risk. If you want people to cooperate with you rather than fight or avoid you, you must mitigate that risk. If you instead try to shame people for your lack of ability to mitigate their risk, they are left with the only options of fight or flight. However, cooperation amplifies the standard of living of a polity, so people would rather live around those they can cooperate with rather than fight/flight. You can only compel people to flee you for so long until the cost of non-cooperation exceeds the cost of fighting (destroying) you to increase the proximity density of people who cooperate at low risk.”— Steve Pender

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-05 16:49:00 UTC

  • Christianity Is Not Incompatible with Natural Law

    You know, by and large, christianity is not incompatible with natural law. The whole damned narrative is. But otherwise, the basic principle of direct demonstrated charity, exhaustion of opportunity for forgiveness, and reciprocity is fine. That said …. there is nothing in that list that wasn’t in our slavic, nordic, germanic, italic civilization before christianity. Ya see? BTW: where are our sacred groves of oak trees, our festivals of the seasons. And our worship of our ancestors? Well. They’re right were we left them.

  • Christianity Is Not Incompatible with Natural Law

    You know, by and large, christianity is not incompatible with natural law. The whole damned narrative is. But otherwise, the basic principle of direct demonstrated charity, exhaustion of opportunity for forgiveness, and reciprocity is fine. That said …. there is nothing in that list that wasn’t in our slavic, nordic, germanic, italic civilization before christianity. Ya see? BTW: where are our sacred groves of oak trees, our festivals of the seasons. And our worship of our ancestors? Well. They’re right were we left them.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. You know, by and large, christianity is not i

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    You know, by and large, christianity is not incompatible with natural law. The whole damned narrative is. But otherwise, the basic principle of direct demonstrated charity, exhaustion of opportunity for forgiveness, and reciprocity is fine. That said …. there is nothing in that list that wasn’t in our slavic, nordic, germanic, italic civilization before christianity. Ya see?

    BTW: where are our sacred groves of oak trees, our festivals of the seasons. And our worship of our ancestors?

    Well. They’re right were we left them.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-03 17:28:46 UTC