Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • There Are No Propertarian Objections to White Nationalism – or Any Other Nationalism

    (controversial)(read it all before you jump to conclusions) Assuming it’s under our ancient group evolutionary strategy (sovereignty), and under our ancient law (rule of natural law of sovereigns), and where we produce commons by a market between the classes (multi-house-government), where we use an intergenerational judge of last resort (hereditary monarchy), and where all those with enfranchisement are trained to, and fight in a militia. (I call this market fascism). But to just separately bring white people together again, say under communism, is not to restore white civilization. And without our civilization we are nothing. I advocate that all peoples of the world adopt nationalism and the white civilizational strategy. Not just us. In fact, I have no problem demanding it at the point of a gun. Fascism for war and intentional reordering of the economy, Market fascism for when we are not at war. And that’s about as difficult as it gets. Curt

  • There Are No Propertarian Objections to White Nationalism – or Any Other Nationalism

    (controversial)(read it all before you jump to conclusions) Assuming it’s under our ancient group evolutionary strategy (sovereignty), and under our ancient law (rule of natural law of sovereigns), and where we produce commons by a market between the classes (multi-house-government), where we use an intergenerational judge of last resort (hereditary monarchy), and where all those with enfranchisement are trained to, and fight in a militia. (I call this market fascism). But to just separately bring white people together again, say under communism, is not to restore white civilization. And without our civilization we are nothing. I advocate that all peoples of the world adopt nationalism and the white civilizational strategy. Not just us. In fact, I have no problem demanding it at the point of a gun. Fascism for war and intentional reordering of the economy, Market fascism for when we are not at war. And that’s about as difficult as it gets. Curt

  • Definition: Origins of Property Rights

    Property rights are determined by those able to mass sufficient violence it to define their constituency and their limits. Under natural law property rights ARE absolute. It is the externalities that determine their limits not whether or not one has demonstrated investment in them. Ergo, scientifically property rights must be absolute, contingent upon the consequences of their exercise. Practically speaking property rights evolve to suit the median of the population, which is why western europeans prior to 1900 had the worlds highest degree of property rights.

  • Definition: Origins of Property Rights

    Property rights are determined by those able to mass sufficient violence it to define their constituency and their limits. Under natural law property rights ARE absolute. It is the externalities that determine their limits not whether or not one has demonstrated investment in them. Ergo, scientifically property rights must be absolute, contingent upon the consequences of their exercise. Practically speaking property rights evolve to suit the median of the population, which is why western europeans prior to 1900 had the worlds highest degree of property rights.

  • Definitions: Possession, Property, Property Rights

    POSSESSION: That which I have acted to prevent others from consumption or use. PROPERTY: That which you and I agree not to use or consume from one another. PROPERTY RIGHTS: that which a third party will insure we do not use or consume from one another.

  • Definitions: Possession, Property, Property Rights

    POSSESSION: That which I have acted to prevent others from consumption or use. PROPERTY: That which you and I agree not to use or consume from one another. PROPERTY RIGHTS: that which a third party will insure we do not use or consume from one another.

  • SCALIA, AND NATURAL LAW (important) ANTIQUATED LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN SUBJECTIVE

    http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/3/20/14976926/gorsuch-natural-law-supreme-court-hearingsGORSUCH, SCALIA, AND NATURAL LAW

    (important)

    ANTIQUATED LANGUAGE DOES NOT MEAN SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT.

    This is a more than somewhat amateurish analysis of the difference between judging a case by the law without interpretation (addition or subtraction of information) of that law (Scalia – Originalism), and judgement of the law as written as to whether it adheres to natural law (Gorsuch – Natural Law), and suggesting that natural law is intuitive, rather than that subset of the Law of Nature, we call Cooperation, which is axiomatically testable by tests of reciprocity.

    Ergo, when Gorsuch suggests that we must apply tests of morality, it is whether the causal density (set of impositions of costs, and provisions of returns) assumed by the law as written are in fact ‘balanced’ – meaning no involuntary costs have been imposed.

    It has nothing to do with intuition, so much as subjectively testing the rationality of each of those inputs and outputs as to whether or not they consist of productive, fully informed, warrantied voluntary exchanges free of imposition of costs upon others by externality. Jurists, lawyers, and juries use the test of the ‘reasonable man’ to judge the rationality of actions given the incentives – in light of the natural asymmetry of information individuals possess becasue of age, ability, and experience.

    The fact that the law uses archaic language of moral philosophy just as mathematicians use the archaic language of mathematical platonism (fictionalism), and that such, analytic statements as I am making to replace those archaic statements with scientific (existential) terminology, is merely one of linguistic habit within the discipline, but not operational application in juridical decision making.

    In other words, both Gorsuch and Scalia are stating that they observe the scientific method in their judgement of the law as written by its adherence to perfect reciprocity, the case as argued adheres to the law as written.

    And that is precisely what Rule Of Law under Natural Law, and a Constitution of Natural Law demand of judges. Judges merely umpire. If you want new rules, go to the government, make new rules, have them survive a test in the market for approval by the states (houses), and survive tests of natural law by the courts.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Natural Law

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-23 13:38:00 UTC

  • “To make your job easy, let me translate Curt’s model for the folk below +3 sigm

    —“To make your job easy, let me translate Curt’s model for the folk below +3 sigma: conflict resolution and cooperation among sovereign peers is a different GAME than organization of non-sovereigns by a central sovereign. This cybernetic differential produces different optimizations, which we call civilizational strategies. If you can cut the lifeblood of other agents on a whim (centrally organized irrigation), then you can rule by fiat. If you can’t overwhelm, force other agents cheaply into submission, then you’ll have to discover a method of adjudication in conflicts such that you get stable cooperation instead of retaliation and defect/defect equilibrium. In other words, you’ll discover natural law, and you’ll incrementally get better at truth telling to make it work.”— Propertarian Frank

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-21 21:54:00 UTC

  • ( I don’t practice ideology I practice natural law. You are too naive and ignora

    ( I don’t practice ideology I practice natural law. You are too naive and ignorant to hold this conversation, which his why you make assumptions like that rather than ask questions to determine if your intuition is correct or not. But you can’t ask those questions because it would give away your level of ignorance. So you hide behind accusations and try to learn from your failings by causing other people to educate your ignorant lazy ass out of self defense. )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 22:05:00 UTC

  • POSSESSION: That which I have acted to prevent others from consumption or use. P

    POSSESSION: That which I have acted to prevent others from consumption or use.

    PROPERTY: That which you and I agree not to use or consume from one another.

    PROPERTY RIGHTS: that which a third party will insure we do not use or consume from one another.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-19 20:48:00 UTC