Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • A SHORT COURSE IN NATURAL LAW (draft. without markets doesn’t tie it all togethe

    A SHORT COURSE IN NATURAL LAW

    (draft. without markets doesn’t tie it all together)

    WHAT DO WE MEAN BY NATURAL LAW?

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/09/19/what-does-natural-law-mean/

    A DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/01/12/definitionnatural-law/

    MORE ON NATURAL LAW

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/29/natural-law/

    RETURNS ON COOPERATION: WHY WE NEED NATURAL LAW

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/06/29/the-first-principles-of-propertarian-ethics/

    A COMPLETE SCIENCE: TRUTH , THE LAW OF INFORMATION, THE NATURAL LAW OF COOPERATION, AND THE PHYSICAL LAWS OF THE UNIVERSE.

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/02/02/truth-natural-law-physical-law/

    DIAGRAM OF THE COMPLETE SCIENCES

    https://propertarianism.com/category/attributes/law/

    SCIENCE (TESTIMONY) IS A DISCIPLINE WITHIN NATURAL LAW

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/11/17/no-science-is-a-moral-discipline-within-natural-law-the-means-by-which-we-warrant-the-truthfulness-of-our-statements/

    THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/02/20/natural-law-and-the-grammar-of-operational-language/

    GRAMMAR, SYNTAX, DATATYPES, and OPERATIONS

    https://propertarianism.com/2017/03/23/propertarianism-datatypes-operations-grammar-syntax/

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-29 16:29:00 UTC

  • it’s almost impossible for even the most dedicated of people to switch from thin

    it’s almost impossible for even the most dedicated of people to switch from thinking in terms of good, to thinking in terms of true. If you use natural law as your means of decidability, then that which is true will in fact always be a good. But only the market can decide if it is a preferred good. You can’t. No matter how hard you try. So try to determine if something is true not good. Any ‘good’ you can imagine will be subjectively decided based upon some outcome you prefer. Whereas natural law will merely ensure that we select preferences that produce goods regardless of what we imagine.

    Its all just math at this point.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-27 18:35:00 UTC

  • La ley natural de los hombres soberanos

    Domesticamos a los hombres con comportamiento primitivo y animal para convivir y sacar provecho

    Los animales no tienen agencia, sólo obedecen a impulsos. Son incapaces de hacer contratos, sólo aprovechar las cosas que les son convenientes. Los animales no pueden resolver disputas y conflictos de manera honrada, sólo son capaces de inventarse excusas para su comportamiento. Los hombres actuamos con base a incentivos, si los incentivos que tenemos en nuestro entorno son capaces de reforzar conductas honorables, habremos de producir mejores hombres. Caso contrario, si los incentivos que nuestro entorno nos proporciona son negativos, los hombres sacarán lo peor de su naturaleza. Es por ello que los hombres que se comportan como bestias pueden ser castigados o sobornados para ser entrenados y domesticados. Si dicho entrenamiento fracasa, pueden ser abandonados a la intemperie, esclavizados, encarcelados, condenados al ostracismo reproductivo para que su piscina genética y estirpe se diluya y eventualmente desaparezca con unas cuantas generaciones, o incluso pueden ser asesinados. Si entrenamos a los hombres que proceden como bestias con propiedad en su totalidad, les enseñamos modales, ética, moralidad y ley, habremos creado incentivos para que los hombres produzcan lo mejor de si. Nosotros, los hombres civilizados trabajamos con nuestros semejantes: Nuestros padres, maestros, comisarios, policías, jueces, jurados, soldados, generales, constructores y reyes. El animal puede ser entrenado para ser una bestia, un esclavo, un siervo, un dependiente, un hombre liberto, un civil, un soldado, un aristócrata: Un ser humano. Entrenar a los hombres requiere sensibilidad, conciencia, razón, conocimiento y agencia. Pero cada grado de entrenamiento exige más del animal, y muchos no pueden completar ese tipo de entrenamiento y trascender de su estado bestial al humano. Y tal es el mundo que sólo hay pocos hombres y muchos animales, muchos humanos que se comportan como bestias en mayor o menor grado. Afortunadamente, muchos pueden ser domesticados. Y una vez que son domesticados, de la misma manera que domesticamos al caballo, la vaca y las ovejas, al hombre podemos ponerlo a trabajar para hacer cosas buenas, para sacarle provecho, para tener ganancias. La domesticación de los hombres es la ocupación más rentable de todas, excepto por una: El éxito de criar y entrenar a los humanos. Porque mientras un caballo, una oveja y un perro son bienes transitables, producir un hombre honrado es una industria altamente rentable. La educación fue diseñada para administrar a otros hombres, para poder gobernar territorios, parar poder crear ejércitos, producir bienes y servicios y poder tener una familia sana de manera exitosa. NO hay razón alguna para que no podamos retornar a nuestra profesión tradicional como hombres: GOBERNAR. Y no hay razón de que no podamos volver a enseñarle a los hombres a gobernar. ¿que debemos enseñar?

    1. Aptitud (fitness), cacería, deportes, juegos, guerra. – Para sobrevivir
    2. Economía, ética, Ley Natural, Contratos, Instituciones, Estrategias Grupales. – Por cuestiones de necesidad
    3. Leer, aritmética, contabilidad, matemática, programación, ingeniería, medicina, física. – Cuestiones básicas
    4. Estetica, Arte, Mitología, Literatura. – Complementarias.

    Podemos desechar la psicología, sociología, religión y estudios políticos. La restauración es sencilla. Regresar a nuestra mayor y más grande industria y producto es fácil: GOBERNAR. Y si se fracasa, cazar a las bestias humanas que quedan, es la mayor de las recompensas. Esta es la Filosofía de la Aristocracia que enseñamos en el Instituto Propietarista.

  • La ley natural de los hombres soberanos

    Domesticamos a los hombres con comportamiento primitivo y animal para convivir y sacar provecho

    Los animales no tienen agencia, sólo obedecen a impulsos. Son incapaces de hacer contratos, sólo aprovechar las cosas que les son convenientes. Los animales no pueden resolver disputas y conflictos de manera honrada, sólo son capaces de inventarse excusas para su comportamiento. Los hombres actuamos con base a incentivos, si los incentivos que tenemos en nuestro entorno son capaces de reforzar conductas honorables, habremos de producir mejores hombres. Caso contrario, si los incentivos que nuestro entorno nos proporciona son negativos, los hombres sacarán lo peor de su naturaleza. Es por ello que los hombres que se comportan como bestias pueden ser castigados o sobornados para ser entrenados y domesticados. Si dicho entrenamiento fracasa, pueden ser abandonados a la intemperie, esclavizados, encarcelados, condenados al ostracismo reproductivo para que su piscina genética y estirpe se diluya y eventualmente desaparezca con unas cuantas generaciones, o incluso pueden ser asesinados. Si entrenamos a los hombres que proceden como bestias con propiedad en su totalidad, les enseñamos modales, ética, moralidad y ley, habremos creado incentivos para que los hombres produzcan lo mejor de si. Nosotros, los hombres civilizados trabajamos con nuestros semejantes: Nuestros padres, maestros, comisarios, policías, jueces, jurados, soldados, generales, constructores y reyes. El animal puede ser entrenado para ser una bestia, un esclavo, un siervo, un dependiente, un hombre liberto, un civil, un soldado, un aristócrata: Un ser humano. Entrenar a los hombres requiere sensibilidad, conciencia, razón, conocimiento y agencia. Pero cada grado de entrenamiento exige más del animal, y muchos no pueden completar ese tipo de entrenamiento y trascender de su estado bestial al humano. Y tal es el mundo que sólo hay pocos hombres y muchos animales, muchos humanos que se comportan como bestias en mayor o menor grado. Afortunadamente, muchos pueden ser domesticados. Y una vez que son domesticados, de la misma manera que domesticamos al caballo, la vaca y las ovejas, al hombre podemos ponerlo a trabajar para hacer cosas buenas, para sacarle provecho, para tener ganancias. La domesticación de los hombres es la ocupación más rentable de todas, excepto por una: El éxito de criar y entrenar a los humanos. Porque mientras un caballo, una oveja y un perro son bienes transitables, producir un hombre honrado es una industria altamente rentable. La educación fue diseñada para administrar a otros hombres, para poder gobernar territorios, parar poder crear ejércitos, producir bienes y servicios y poder tener una familia sana de manera exitosa. NO hay razón alguna para que no podamos retornar a nuestra profesión tradicional como hombres: GOBERNAR. Y no hay razón de que no podamos volver a enseñarle a los hombres a gobernar. ¿que debemos enseñar?

    1. Aptitud (fitness), cacería, deportes, juegos, guerra. – Para sobrevivir
    2. Economía, ética, Ley Natural, Contratos, Instituciones, Estrategias Grupales. – Por cuestiones de necesidad
    3. Leer, aritmética, contabilidad, matemática, programación, ingeniería, medicina, física. – Cuestiones básicas
    4. Estetica, Arte, Mitología, Literatura. – Complementarias.

    Podemos desechar la psicología, sociología, religión y estudios políticos. La restauración es sencilla. Regresar a nuestra mayor y más grande industria y producto es fácil: GOBERNAR. Y si se fracasa, cazar a las bestias humanas que quedan, es la mayor de las recompensas. Esta es la Filosofía de la Aristocracia que enseñamos en el Instituto Propietarista.

  • “Cooperation is preferable when profitable. Otherwise it is cuckoldry”—Micah P

    —“Cooperation is preferable when profitable. Otherwise it is cuckoldry”—Micah Pezdirtz

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-26 09:13:00 UTC

  • You Don’t Have it in the First Place

    YOU DON”T HAVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. 😉 Great questions. —1) From where does a polity gain more rights or powers under Natural Law than the individual has in the first place?— a) a right is a demand upon others. one does not intrinsically possess rights, one intrinsically requires them. Just as one does not intrinsically possess property he acquires it. You can REQUIRE, and DEMAND others not impose costs upon your possessions, but you cannot possess property in fact, or property rights in fact, without a contract for those rights in some form, and a polity or institution to insure them on your behalf, and you on theirs. Else we would not have this discussion. b) natural law provides decidability in matters of conflict regardless of the difference in opinions of the individuals in that conflict. c) using decidability one can judicially discover and outlaw the new means of parasitism, and the new forms of property, that we consistently invent. d) so regardless of initial presumptions the scope of our property rights can increase indefinitely under natural law regardless of the opinions of others (or ourselves). Ergo, under natural law, no matter what we expend our efforts and resources upon, we are able to convert it into property (exclusion of others from its use, taking, or consumption), as long as we do so without violating the exclusion others ask of us via reciprocity. —“2) How is productivity quantified in your system of validation for voluntary agreements and their externalities?”— a) preamble: i) possessions provide us with agency. ii) cooperation provides us with multipliers upon our agency. iii) it appears that we cannot compete (survive) without the agency provided by the transformation of personally insured possessions into cooperatively insured property. iv) And it is difficult to compete and survive without the agency provided by external cooperation (cooperation at scale via markets). v) ergo we must cooperate to produce property rights that provide us with agency, multipliers, and greater multipliers of the market. vi) and we must possess a means of decidability upon the scope of property to be insured (a property right), before we can cooperatively insure property. b) conversely, i) humans retaliate against impositions of costs upon the investments they have made, in order to obtain an interest in some good, service, information, or association. ii) humans retaliate more severely than the original cost imposed upon them as a means of dissuading future such violations. iii) we evolved these behaviors precisely because of the necessity of cooperation in our survival, competition, and prospering, in relation to nature and the competition of other groups. iv) and we evolved the institutions of property, property rights, and law, to prevent cycles of retaliation (feuds) that were endemic to human groups prior to the invention of the prevention of retaliation by the institutions of property, property rights, and law. The law – our first ‘commons’ – evolved to preserve cooperation and the benefits of cooperation. v) and humans organize to embrace familial generosity, in-group reciprocity, and out group cooperation, competition, or war, by the importance of cooperation in each of those domains of action. c) one cannot quantify changes in state only qualify changes in state – or we cannot yet do so with the instrumentation we have available to us today. And while we can qualify changes in state, we do not need to qualify, positive changes in state. We need only know if there have been negative changes in state – whether someone will retaliate. And those changes in state are limited to property in toto (demonstrated property – property in fact). That which we have obtained through homesteading, transformation of possessions, or exchange. And to prevent retaliation, we must limit ourselves to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges limited to productive externalities. d) because when we limit ourselves as such, no possible retaliation can be instigated. cooperation is preserved. the fruits of cooperation are preserved: possessions, property, property rights, and markets. e) we do not choose the scope of property – others choose to invest their energies in obtaining interests by bringing changes in state of the universe into being through their actions. This interest serves to exclude you from imposition of costs upon that interest. And they choose to retaliate against impositions of costs upon them. So while we express via-positiva our necessity of a commons of property rights, the via negativa restatement of that demand, is that we seek to preserve cooperation and its fruits, by violating the terms of cooperation: the imposition of costs. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • You Don’t Have it in the First Place

    YOU DON”T HAVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. 😉 Great questions. —1) From where does a polity gain more rights or powers under Natural Law than the individual has in the first place?— a) a right is a demand upon others. one does not intrinsically possess rights, one intrinsically requires them. Just as one does not intrinsically possess property he acquires it. You can REQUIRE, and DEMAND others not impose costs upon your possessions, but you cannot possess property in fact, or property rights in fact, without a contract for those rights in some form, and a polity or institution to insure them on your behalf, and you on theirs. Else we would not have this discussion. b) natural law provides decidability in matters of conflict regardless of the difference in opinions of the individuals in that conflict. c) using decidability one can judicially discover and outlaw the new means of parasitism, and the new forms of property, that we consistently invent. d) so regardless of initial presumptions the scope of our property rights can increase indefinitely under natural law regardless of the opinions of others (or ourselves). Ergo, under natural law, no matter what we expend our efforts and resources upon, we are able to convert it into property (exclusion of others from its use, taking, or consumption), as long as we do so without violating the exclusion others ask of us via reciprocity. —“2) How is productivity quantified in your system of validation for voluntary agreements and their externalities?”— a) preamble: i) possessions provide us with agency. ii) cooperation provides us with multipliers upon our agency. iii) it appears that we cannot compete (survive) without the agency provided by the transformation of personally insured possessions into cooperatively insured property. iv) And it is difficult to compete and survive without the agency provided by external cooperation (cooperation at scale via markets). v) ergo we must cooperate to produce property rights that provide us with agency, multipliers, and greater multipliers of the market. vi) and we must possess a means of decidability upon the scope of property to be insured (a property right), before we can cooperatively insure property. b) conversely, i) humans retaliate against impositions of costs upon the investments they have made, in order to obtain an interest in some good, service, information, or association. ii) humans retaliate more severely than the original cost imposed upon them as a means of dissuading future such violations. iii) we evolved these behaviors precisely because of the necessity of cooperation in our survival, competition, and prospering, in relation to nature and the competition of other groups. iv) and we evolved the institutions of property, property rights, and law, to prevent cycles of retaliation (feuds) that were endemic to human groups prior to the invention of the prevention of retaliation by the institutions of property, property rights, and law. The law – our first ‘commons’ – evolved to preserve cooperation and the benefits of cooperation. v) and humans organize to embrace familial generosity, in-group reciprocity, and out group cooperation, competition, or war, by the importance of cooperation in each of those domains of action. c) one cannot quantify changes in state only qualify changes in state – or we cannot yet do so with the instrumentation we have available to us today. And while we can qualify changes in state, we do not need to qualify, positive changes in state. We need only know if there have been negative changes in state – whether someone will retaliate. And those changes in state are limited to property in toto (demonstrated property – property in fact). That which we have obtained through homesteading, transformation of possessions, or exchange. And to prevent retaliation, we must limit ourselves to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges limited to productive externalities. d) because when we limit ourselves as such, no possible retaliation can be instigated. cooperation is preserved. the fruits of cooperation are preserved: possessions, property, property rights, and markets. e) we do not choose the scope of property – others choose to invest their energies in obtaining interests by bringing changes in state of the universe into being through their actions. This interest serves to exclude you from imposition of costs upon that interest. And they choose to retaliate against impositions of costs upon them. So while we express via-positiva our necessity of a commons of property rights, the via negativa restatement of that demand, is that we seek to preserve cooperation and its fruits, by violating the terms of cooperation: the imposition of costs. Cheers Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Chasing Down ‘Libertarian’ Smells

    CHASING DOWN ‘LIBERTARIAN’ (free rider) SMELLS Matt Mitchell —“Curt, is there anything in particular that I said that goes against what you said? For markets to function there needs to be a particular order in the first place, right? Things can change in time, yes, though there are things that do not change or are unlikely to change. Forcing people to live one way or the other, doesn’t help in any way.”—

    Curt Doolittle Hmmm…. well, you know, I have a job right? And in my job I look for opportunities to encourage people to think ‘completely’. So to some degree I’m just ‘riffing’ off your post to get people to think. But in the context of your post, you are implying steady state, homogeneity, and religious authority necessary to indoctrinate those beliefs – when people merely choose the beliefs that suit their circumstances. So that I felt the need to do was to remind you and others, that we are not agrarians any longer. That the world of modern urbanity is much more like living as diasporic tribes floating between city-markets, trading our goods (skills, labor), and that we do not have the steady state, the homogeneity, or the ability to indoctrinate under these conditions, and as such we can only struggle to impose limits and exceptions (laws) in a jurisdiction, not ‘regularities’ (beliefs). So I was reacting to a ‘libertarian smell’, and ‘false assumption’ smell to your argument. Trade always existed. Cities were created by violence. Markets were created by violence. Trade routes were created by violence. More violence than the thieves could muster to prey upon them. The truth is, we have to fight. And that’s all there is to it. So what is the social order that both allows us to fight and eliminates the need to fight? Rule of law. So yes, forcing people to live under increasing suppression of parasitism is unquestionably in all of history a ‘good’. It may in fact, be the good that produces the highest returns of all. Even more so than the division of labor. Because it is the first good that makes the division of labor possible. 😉 Force, fire, water, air, and words, are good things put to good purpose. Or bad things put to bad purpose. They are not intrinsically good or bad. ———–definition———– “Code smell”, also known as bad smell, in computer programming code, refers to any symptom in the source code of a program that possibly indicates a deeper problem. According to Martin Fowler, “a code smell is a surface indication that usually corresponds to a deeper problem in the system”.

  • Chasing Down ‘Libertarian’ Smells

    CHASING DOWN ‘LIBERTARIAN’ (free rider) SMELLS Matt Mitchell —“Curt, is there anything in particular that I said that goes against what you said? For markets to function there needs to be a particular order in the first place, right? Things can change in time, yes, though there are things that do not change or are unlikely to change. Forcing people to live one way or the other, doesn’t help in any way.”—

    Curt Doolittle Hmmm…. well, you know, I have a job right? And in my job I look for opportunities to encourage people to think ‘completely’. So to some degree I’m just ‘riffing’ off your post to get people to think. But in the context of your post, you are implying steady state, homogeneity, and religious authority necessary to indoctrinate those beliefs – when people merely choose the beliefs that suit their circumstances. So that I felt the need to do was to remind you and others, that we are not agrarians any longer. That the world of modern urbanity is much more like living as diasporic tribes floating between city-markets, trading our goods (skills, labor), and that we do not have the steady state, the homogeneity, or the ability to indoctrinate under these conditions, and as such we can only struggle to impose limits and exceptions (laws) in a jurisdiction, not ‘regularities’ (beliefs). So I was reacting to a ‘libertarian smell’, and ‘false assumption’ smell to your argument. Trade always existed. Cities were created by violence. Markets were created by violence. Trade routes were created by violence. More violence than the thieves could muster to prey upon them. The truth is, we have to fight. And that’s all there is to it. So what is the social order that both allows us to fight and eliminates the need to fight? Rule of law. So yes, forcing people to live under increasing suppression of parasitism is unquestionably in all of history a ‘good’. It may in fact, be the good that produces the highest returns of all. Even more so than the division of labor. Because it is the first good that makes the division of labor possible. 😉 Force, fire, water, air, and words, are good things put to good purpose. Or bad things put to bad purpose. They are not intrinsically good or bad. ———–definition———– “Code smell”, also known as bad smell, in computer programming code, refers to any symptom in the source code of a program that possibly indicates a deeper problem. According to Martin Fowler, “a code smell is a surface indication that usually corresponds to a deeper problem in the system”.

  • Definitions: Full Accounting vs Perfect Reciprocity

    TERMS: FULL ACCOUNTING VS FULL VS PERFECT RECIPROCITY —“Describe what you mean by “FULL reciprocity” if you would.”— “Without having to make an excuse for an involuntary imposition of costs in either direction.” I sometimes use the term ‘perfect reciprocity‘ which is technically impossible, but is less confusing. The possible term is full accounting (what is possible), not ideal accounting(what is perfect).