Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • More NAP and The Blackmail Test

    —“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary exchange.” The issue I have with that is that blackmail is coercion by definition, and merely acquiescing to coercion (such as handing the mugger your wallet) doesn’t make it less of a NAP breach. Correct?”–– well, rothbard and block and hoppe disagree with you, because it is in fact a voluntary exchange. —“It’s not coercion under the nap because you choose it voluntarily. Search for block and rothbard arguments on blackmail. It is not coercive if it’s voluntary.”— Now, if you study hoppe you’ll find he uses the term ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’ meaning ‘physical things’. The reason libertarianism is debated (and the reason it’s all bullshit) is because no one can define the scope of property that one can aggress against. blackmail isn’t against the scope of intersubjectively verifiable property. It’s against reputation. —“Can we go back to my example with the mugger, which is easier to speak about in an IM format? terms like intersubjectively verifiable property don’t help me with that particular situation”— ok what’s your example. —“All those thinkers (whom I respect) aside, my example is the following:If person A is minding their own business and person B walks up to them with gun in hand and says “Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you dead” and person A acquiesces, is that a voluntary choice on the part of person A?”— Well since nothing is offered in exchange, no. –“And if person B says “Give me your wallet and I’ll give you a widget. If you do not comply, I will shoot you dead”, is it voluntarily entered into on part of person A then?(I’m not a NAP or libertarian apologist, I am genuinely curious about Propertarian philosophy and want to understand where it differs from mainstream thought)”— There is no difference between propertarianism and tort law other than strict construction. Libertarian thought does not correspond to tort law (only jewish law) because the purpose of tort law is to prevent retaliation cycles, and the purpose of libertarian ethics only to justify getting away with scams. (really). —“I posed a yes-or-no question”— And what has that to do with anything? Framing a question does not mean you’ve honestly asked one. It means it’s unlikely that you’ve asked one. (a) voluntary (b) fully informed (truthful), (c) productive, (d) warrantied, transfer (e) free of imposition of costs by externality. So those are the criteria for reciprocal trade. In the example you gave, is it a voluntary, fully informed truthful, productive, warrantied, transfer free of externality? well no, because it’s not productive, and it’s not voluntary. –“👍 I agree. Can you give me an example of something that can be called blackmail according to tort law that fulfils a,b,c,d, and e?”— Example: I’m going to tell your religious friends who are considering investing in your business that you had a single gay experience in college that I was privy to, unless you pay me 1000 dollars. Now does the NAP under intersubjedtively verifiable property tolerate this? yes. Does it prevent retaliation cycles? No. —“A and B seem fulfilled, but C, D and E don’t.”— It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to my head is it? –“It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to your head. The degree of offence is slighter, but it is an offence nonetheless, both according to tort law and the NAP”— Thank you for your time, I’ll mull over this That’s your judgement thou. Because according to Rothbard and block, blackmail is voluntary and they’ve written extensively. Why? You have the choice to refuse the deal. The guy with a gun to your head isn’t giving yo uthe choice to refuse the deal. Ergo blackmail is voluntary, and robbery is not. That’s what you’re missing. A definition of voluntary. Where voluntary merely means choice. Hence why I work so hard at deflating terminology so that these problems, which are common libertarian sophisms, are not possible. Most of rothbardian libertarian argument is predicated on this kind of verbal trickery. The imprecision of ideas allowing individuals to substitute their intuitionist definitions, rather than operational existential testiable definitions. Ie: pilpul: deceit by half truth, suggestion, and substitution. Hence why you, and many others are so easily fooled. And why am so diligent about suppression of Pilpul. —“Plpul? Oh like casuistry?”— “Justification of priors using rhetorical devices.” Pilpul is the equivalent of numerology and astrology for the interpretation of texts. Yes, like casuistry. Casuistry = Sophism The problem is people are highly susceptible to sophisms that depend on moral substitution (using a half truth that allows the audience to substitute his intuitions rather than deduce them from the argument. —“So what is a justifiable reaction to blackmail within the propertarian paradigm? I’m probably a propertarian who doesn’t know it yet.”— I don’t use ‘justifiable’ I use empirical. It means “what people do”. People retaliate against blackmail, either legally, violently, or through third parties. But blackmail is one of the most likely ways for getting someone who is not a lover or a relative to kill you. So propertarianism would say that there is no differece between sticking a gun in your face, and sticking blackmail in your face, and you have your choice of means of restitution and punishment. –“I see”–

  • WE ARE THE PRODUCT OF OUR LAWS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AFFECTATION Natural law preda

    WE ARE THE PRODUCT OF OUR LAWS. EVERYTHING ELSE IS AFFECTATION

    Natural law predates all western states, and is merely the law of tort (reciprocity for the prevention of retaliation cycles), which is merely traditional european customary law back into the pre-govermental (tribal) period. Natural law is the label and justification for traditional (northern) european customary law. It was the greeks who started and zeno in particular who gave the romans, the explanation that traditional customary law of individual sovereignty and reciprocity (and tripartism), was in fact ‘natural’ ( living according to the laws of nature), and the church’s contribution was to state it was necessary for peaceful cooperation among peoples as a means of demanding the state – particularly once the spanish started slaughtering primitives in the new world.

    Western civ like all civs is a product of our law, and our law like all civs originated in our military orders and was codified during the period of the great transformations.

    Theologians, priests, monks, and the church like philosophers, public intellectuals, professors, and the academy, and like propagandists, politicians, bureaucrats and the state, take credit for and develop names for, those things which they justify but do not cause or created or even practice.

    Meanwhile the law, the economy, the trades, and families leave daily records of the purely empirical.

    We are almost always just the product of our laws, and everything else is propaganda.

    Hence the importance of law, and in particular the law of sovereign men, and that is the law of tort: the resolution of conflict and the prevention of retaliation cycles by the demand for productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs upon third parties (externalities).

    It just so happens that once you choose sovereignty and the law of tort you are forced to produce markets, and in doing so adapt faster to changes than all other civilizations combined.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-07 08:41:00 UTC

  • MORE NAP AND THE BLACKMAIL TEST —“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary excha

    MORE NAP AND THE BLACKMAIL TEST

    —“According to the NAP, it’s a voluntary exchange.” The issue I have with that is that blackmail is coercion by definition, and merely acquiescing to coercion (such as handing the mugger your wallet) doesn’t make it less of a NAP breach. Correct?”—

    well, rothbard and block and hoppe disagree with you, because it is in fact a voluntary exchange.

    —“It’s not coercion under the nap because you choose it voluntarily. Search for block and rothbard arguments on blackmail. It is not coercive if it’s voluntary.”—

    Now, if you study hoppe you’ll find he uses the term ‘intersubjectively verifiable property’ meaning ‘physical things’.

    The reason libertarianism is debated (and the reason it’s all bullshit) is because no one can define the scope of property that one can aggress against.

    blackmail isn’t against the scope of intersubjectively verifiable property. It’s against reputation.

    —“Can we go back to my example with the mugger, which is easier to speak about in an IM format? terms like intersubjectively verifiable property don’t help me with that particular situation”—

    ok what’s your example.

    —“All those thinkers (whom I respect) aside, my example is the following:

    If person A is minding their own business and person B walks up to them with gun in hand and says “Give me your wallet or I’ll shoot you dead” and person A acquiesces, is that a voluntary choice on the part of person A?”—

    Well since nothing is offered in exchange, no.

    –“And if person B says “Give me your wallet and I’ll give you a widget. If you do not comply, I will shoot you dead”, is it voluntarily entered into on part of person A then?

    (I’m not a NAP or libertarian apologist, I am genuinely curious about Propertarian philosophy and want to understand where it differs from mainstream thought)”—

    There is no difference between propertarianism and tort law other than strict construction. Libertarian thought does not correspond to tort law (only jewish law) because the purpose of tort law is to prevent retaliation cycles, and the purpose of libertarian ethics only to justify getting away with scams. (really).

    —“I posed a yes-or-no question”—

    And what has that to do with anything? Framing a question does not mean you’ve honestly asked one. It means it’s unlikely that you’ve asked one.

    (a) voluntary (b) fully informed (truthful), (c) productive, (d) warrantied, transfer (e) free of imposition of costs by externality.

    So those are the criteria for reciprocal trade.

    In the example you gave, is it a voluntary, fully informed truthful, productive, warrantied, transfer free of externality?

    well no, because it’s not productive, and it’s not voluntary.

    –“👍 I agree. Can you give me an example of something that can be called blackmail according to tort law that fulfils a,b,c,d, and e?”—

    Example: I’m going to tell your religious friends who are considering investing in your business that you had a single gay experience in college that I was privy to, unless you pay me 1000 dollars.

    Now does the NAP under intersubjedtively verifiable property tolerate this? yes.

    Does it prevent retaliation cycles? No.

    —“A and B seem fulfilled, but C, D and E don’t.”—

    It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to my head is it?

    –“It’s not more voluntary than sticking a gun to your head. The degree of offence is slighter, but it is an offence nonetheless, both according to tort law and the NAP”—

    Thank you for your time, I’ll mull over this

    That’s your judgement thou. Because according to Rothbard and block, blackmail is voluntary and they’ve written extensively.

    Why? You have the choice to refuse the deal. The guy with a gun to your head isn’t giving yo uthe choice to refuse the deal.

    Ergo blackmail is voluntary, and robbery is not.

    That’s what you’re missing. A definition of voluntary. Where voluntary merely means choice.

    Hence why I work so hard at deflating terminology so that these problems, which are common libertarian sophisms, are not possible.

    Most of rothbardian libertarian argument is predicated on this kind of verbal trickery. The imprecision of ideas allowing individuals to substitute their intuitionist definitions, rather than operational existential testiable definitions.

    Ie: pilpul: deceit by half truth, suggestion, and substitution.

    Hence why you, and many others are so easily fooled. And why am so diligent about suppression of Pilpul.

    —“Plpul? Oh like casuistry?”—

    “Justification of priors using rhetorical devices.”

    Pilpul is the equivalent of numerology and astrology for the interpretation of texts.

    Yes, like casuistry. Casuistry = Sophism

    The problem is people are highly susceptible to sophisms that depend on moral substitution (using a half truth that allows the audience to substitute his intuitions rather than deduce them from the argument.

    —“So what is a justifiable reaction to blackmail within the propertarian paradigm? I’m probably a propertarian who doesn’t know it yet.”—

    I don’t use ‘justifiable’ I use empirical. It means “what people do”. People retaliate against blackmail, either legally, violently, or through third parties. But blackmail is one of the most likely ways for getting someone who is not a lover or a relative to kill you.

    So propertarianism would say that there is no differece between sticking a gun in your face, and sticking blackmail in your face, and you have your choice of means of restitution and punishment.

    –“I see”–

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 19:43:00 UTC

  • The Reason Most People Are Confused Is Simply a Failure to Speak in Operational Grammar,

    RECIPROCITY 1) Acting Reciprocally is necessary for cooperation to survive in any life form (or post-life for that matter). All life forms that do not practice reciprocity must go extinct, because consumption (use of resources) is not calculable. TRAINING 2) Tit for tat, and exhaustive tit for tat, are strategies to train for preserving reciprocity. (an investment) However, they require memory. Hence why it’s only possible for creatures with memory. MORALITY 3) Morality is the name for the value judgement we assign to reciprocity. ( a value judgement). Actions are moral, amoral, or immoral, if they are reciprocal, fully internal, or irreciprocal. MORAL NORMS 4) Moral Rules (moral norms) are those surviving habits of reciprocity in any social order. ETHICAL, MORAL, AUTISTIC 5) Ethics refers to conditions of the interpersonal (non-anonymous but informationally asymmetric), and Morals refers to conditions of the extra personal (anonymous and informationally asymmetric). Technically actions that are neither interpersonal nor anonymous (affecting only the self) are “Autistic”. — is = exists as. If you think you know what you’re talking about don’t use is, are, was, were, etc. It will demonstrate whether you do or not if you can manage to make a complete and grammatically correct statement without the ‘fudge’ words (verb to be) that mean everything deducible from your statement (premise) is false. I’m very careful with it. is/are=exists as. The reason most people are confused is simply a failure to speak in operational (correct) grammar, while trying to make arguments requiring infungible premises. Every moron who argues with me (present company not included) will jump on teh autistic bandwagon not realizing that if they cannot speak precisely and operationally they are either hand waving to cover their reliance on intuition rather than argument, or engaging in rationalism (justification) which is the intellectual cancer Kant imposed upon our poor european cousins.

  • The Reason Most People Are Confused Is Simply a Failure to Speak in Operational Grammar,

    RECIPROCITY 1) Acting Reciprocally is necessary for cooperation to survive in any life form (or post-life for that matter). All life forms that do not practice reciprocity must go extinct, because consumption (use of resources) is not calculable. TRAINING 2) Tit for tat, and exhaustive tit for tat, are strategies to train for preserving reciprocity. (an investment) However, they require memory. Hence why it’s only possible for creatures with memory. MORALITY 3) Morality is the name for the value judgement we assign to reciprocity. ( a value judgement). Actions are moral, amoral, or immoral, if they are reciprocal, fully internal, or irreciprocal. MORAL NORMS 4) Moral Rules (moral norms) are those surviving habits of reciprocity in any social order. ETHICAL, MORAL, AUTISTIC 5) Ethics refers to conditions of the interpersonal (non-anonymous but informationally asymmetric), and Morals refers to conditions of the extra personal (anonymous and informationally asymmetric). Technically actions that are neither interpersonal nor anonymous (affecting only the self) are “Autistic”. — is = exists as. If you think you know what you’re talking about don’t use is, are, was, were, etc. It will demonstrate whether you do or not if you can manage to make a complete and grammatically correct statement without the ‘fudge’ words (verb to be) that mean everything deducible from your statement (premise) is false. I’m very careful with it. is/are=exists as. The reason most people are confused is simply a failure to speak in operational (correct) grammar, while trying to make arguments requiring infungible premises. Every moron who argues with me (present company not included) will jump on teh autistic bandwagon not realizing that if they cannot speak precisely and operationally they are either hand waving to cover their reliance on intuition rather than argument, or engaging in rationalism (justification) which is the intellectual cancer Kant imposed upon our poor european cousins.

  • RECIPROCITY 1) Acting Reciprocally is necessary for cooperation to survive in an

    RECIPROCITY

    1) Acting Reciprocally is necessary for cooperation to survive in any life form (or post-life for that matter). All life forms that do not practice reciprocity must go extinct, because consumption (use of resources) is not calculable.

    TRAINING

    2) Tit for tat, and exhaustive tit for tat, are strategies to train for preserving reciprocity. (an investment) However, they require memory. Hence why it’s only possible for creatures with memory.

    MORALITY

    3) Morality is the name for the value judgement we assign to reciprocity. ( a value judgement). Actions are moral, amoral, or immoral, if they are reciprocal, fully internal, or irreciprocal.

    MORAL NORMS

    4) Moral Rules (moral norms) are those surviving habits of reciprocity in any social order.

    ETHICAL, MORAL, AUTISTIC

    5) Ethics refers to conditions of the interpersonal (non-anonymous but informationally asymmetric), and Morals refers to conditions of the extra personal (anonymous and informationally asymmetric). Technically actions that are neither interpersonal nor anonymous (affecting only the self) are “Autistic”.

    —

    is = exists as. If you think you know what you’re talking about don’t use is, are, was, were, etc. It will demonstrate whether you do or not if you can manage to make a complete and grammatically correct statement without the ‘fudge’ words (verb to be) that mean everything deducible from your statement (premise) is false. I’m very careful with it. is/are=exists as.

    The reason most people are confused is simply a failure to speak in operational (correct) grammar, while trying to make arguments requiring infungible premises.

    Every moron who argues with me (present company not included) will jump on teh autistic bandwagon not realizing that if they cannot speak precisely and operationally they are either hand waving to cover their reliance on intuition rather than argument, or engaging in rationalism (justification) which is the intellectual cancer Kant imposed upon our poor european cousins.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 16:19:00 UTC

  • NOMOCRACY = Rule of Law , Must = Rule of law by Natural Law of Reciprocity. Howe

    NOMOCRACY = Rule of Law , Must = Rule of law by Natural Law of Reciprocity. However, markets for comons must exist, because commons must exist for a polity to survive competition in the market for territory.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-06 15:19:55 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993148360960995329

    Reply addressees: @AjArrival @TheAustrian_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993147003612946433

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/993147003612946433

  • Who deserves to live isn’t important. It’s anyone who doesn’t deserve not to…..

    THE ETERNAL QUESTION? (natural law on deserving) —“how do you know who deserves to live and die?”— It is very easy to determine who needs to die. We have done it for millennia. The only question is that since we have shifted our principle means of predation from from murder, to theft, to fraud, to conspiracy, to financial conspiracy, to political conspiracy, how we will likewise shift our prosecution of crimes to punish the wicked perpetrating the current means. Who deserves to live isn’t important. It’s anyone who doesn’t deserve not to…..

  • Who deserves to live isn’t important. It’s anyone who doesn’t deserve not to…..

    THE ETERNAL QUESTION? (natural law on deserving) —“how do you know who deserves to live and die?”— It is very easy to determine who needs to die. We have done it for millennia. The only question is that since we have shifted our principle means of predation from from murder, to theft, to fraud, to conspiracy, to financial conspiracy, to political conspiracy, how we will likewise shift our prosecution of crimes to punish the wicked perpetrating the current means. Who deserves to live isn’t important. It’s anyone who doesn’t deserve not to…..

  • THE ETERNAL QUESTION? (natural law on deserving) —“how do you know who deserve

    THE ETERNAL QUESTION?

    (natural law on deserving)

    —“how do you know who deserves to live and die?”—

    It is very easy to determine who needs to die. We have done it for millennia. The only question is that since we have shifted our principle means of predation from from murder, to theft, to fraud, to conspiracy, to financial conspiracy, to political conspiracy, how we will likewise shift our prosecution of crimes to punish the wicked perpetrating the current means.

    Who deserves to live isn’t important. It’s anyone who doesn’t deserve not to…..

    😉

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-02 10:32:00 UTC