#Trump The Hopeful Generations have ended. We have no hope. We have only determination – at the cost of our lives: Rule of Law, Natural Law.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-28 20:26:00 UTC
Theme: Reciprocity
-
We freaking did it. Agency, Sovereignty, Oath, Reciprocity, Testimony, Markets i
We freaking did it.
Agency, Sovereignty, Oath, Reciprocity, Testimony, Markets in Everything, The Domestication of Man into AGENCY for fun and profit.
Acquisitionism, Testimonialism, Propertarianism, Natural Law, Markets in Everything – group evolutionary strategy of the peerage.
The people who speak deflationary truth
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 23:11:00 UTC
-
TERMS: FULL ACCOUNTING VS FULL VS PERFECT RECIPROCITY —“Describe what you mean
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).
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 19:28:00 UTC
-
Entrepreneurship runs in families for many reasons but not the least of which is
Entrepreneurship runs in families for many reasons but not the least of which is because the lower classes make moral judgements (claims on others) and the middle classes make reciprocity judgements (exchanges with others) and the upper middle classes make outwitting judgements (competing with others).
We train generations in the assumption of the nature of relations which imprisons them.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-25 19:00:00 UTC
-
YOU DON”T HAVE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. 😉 Great questions. —1) From where does
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
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 10:22:00 UTC
-
(from elsewhere) —“Aristocracy, in a propertarian social order, would be (in v
(from elsewhere)
—“Aristocracy, in a propertarian social order, would be (in very general lines) established by the acquisition of property rights under the condition of defending others’ property rights with violence.”—
There you go. 🙂
Suggestion. I do not see aristocracy as providing positive direction (politics), but negative judgement (law). As those who have earned and held wealth over generations, the upper aristocracy forms a market for ideas that will improve the entire polity. I do not make the mistake that aristocracy leads by command except in war. Only that aristocracy creates markets wherein only those with merit rise from undomesticated animal to peer: sovereign human.
–“Hierarchy is the only organized way a people can coexist.”–
um. I say that hierarchy is the way we exist because of the demonstrated differences in our abilities and value to one another, and therefore the way we organize; and the only way we can organize; and if possessed of property rights, do organize; but do so voluntarily, meritocratically, and in one another’s interests; under rule of natural law, not rule of command.
This is a more subtle method of describing natural processes when our natural abilities are freed by property rights.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-24 08:30:00 UTC
-
INHERENT RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE Natural Law describes NE
INHERENT RIGHTS ARE LOGICALLY AND PHYSICALLY IMPOSSIBLE
Natural Law describes NECESSARY rights. We can’t possibly posses ‘inherent’ rights, since all rights consist of claims against (demands against) others. Since a claim or demand from others can only exist in a contract or agreement, and that the term ‘right’ is only possible when appealing to a third party – we can on say we NEED these rights inherently, as human beings, but not that we possess them. That’s impossible. It’s physically and logically impossible. So if we describe natural law as inherently possessed rather than inherently required, we attempt an act of fraud: which is to ignore the very simple fact that to obtain rights of any kind requires that we exchange them with others, and that we insure them, and at any scale, that we pay an insurer to insure them for all of us (judiciary). Any statement of inherently possessed rights is an act of fraud whereby the individual seeks claims against others without entering into a contract for exchange, and preferably, both with a third party insurer that renders asymmetry of violence neutral.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-23 11:21:00 UTC
-
ON USURY: VIOLATIONS OF RECIPROCITY When moral interest violates natural law of
ON USURY: VIOLATIONS OF RECIPROCITY
When moral interest violates natural law of reciprocity:
1 – natural law requires reciprocity
2 – natural law requires that neither borrower or lender may externalize costs (to the transaction).
3 – the individual with asymmetric power is the lender, and bears equal responsibility in selecting opportunities for interest as does the borrower bear responsibility for repaying the loan.
4 – There is no difference in fault between selecting an incapable borrower, and borrowing an amount one is incapable of paying. This violates reciprocity.
5 – The limit of restitution is determined by the amount of the original loan, minus the payments against it, else cost are externalized beyond the transaction.
6 – Once in default, the contract is broken, and we have evidence of both the failure of borrower and lender to conduct due diligence, and therefore
7 – the lender is never due interest (reward) for bad lending, any more than the borrower is due returns for the use of what he borrowed to use in production. So in the case of the original amount, we are referring to the amount not the amount plus interest.
8 – for this reason my understanding is that principle should be paid off first, and interest following, in all honest transactions. And statements otherwise exist entirely to obtain unearned profits.
I could write about this all day long but I have other things to do…. reciprocity means borrower and lender bear equal responsibility, else we empower lenders to search out the incompetent in order to obtain through defaults that which they could not obtain through the selection of productive opportunities that cause no negative externality.
Source date (UTC): 2017-02-21 09:03:00 UTC
-
Natural Law, and the Grammar of Operational Language
NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM (propertarianism core)(important) Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already. For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually. EXPLANATION Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error. Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs. So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns. THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result, actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result “The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false). In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR. FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law. {terms and definitions } -We … (who) -Whereas we have observed … (definition of state ) -Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state) -We propose …. (series of actions to change state) and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.) -Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws) and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed), -And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ). -Signed …. -Juried …. …. -Adjudicated. …. …. …. -Recorded. This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution. Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions. We must correct: The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty. All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and their ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission. WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years. We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior. This is terribly easy to do. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity. And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit. APOLOGIES I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments. Curt Doolittle -
Natural Law, and the Grammar of Operational Language
NATURAL LAW AND THE GRAMMAR OF OPERATIONALISM (propertarianism core)(important) Operationalism like any legal language, or programming language, is grammatically burdensome. It requires you to take your sentence structure to the next level of abstraction and exit the passive voice entirely, as well as all use of the verb to-be. So, as a language, it requires more planning. Just like english requires more planning than other languages do already. For most people it will be easier if you jot your ideas down however they occur to you, then translate them in to operational language. Doing so will show you HOW LITTLE YOU KNOW about what it is that you THINK you know. Furthermore it prevents OTHERS from claiming that they know something before audiences less skilled and informed as you are. If you translate your work into operational language it will not take very long before you start to write that way habitually. EXPLANATION Language is actually a pretty weak construct compared to visualization. We must serially construct context and description out of shared meaning, and then constantly correct for perceived misinterpretation, incomprehension, and our own error. Use of the passive voice is intuitive because it places the subject (which is precise) at the beginning of the sentence rather than the verb (actions) which are more general and less contextual. And when we speak in operational language it is the VERBS that take precedence, and the nouns serve only as context for the verbs. So it is counter – intuitive to be very specific about the verbs which are general. Usually we build context out of nouns, and related and color them with verbs and pronouns. But in Operationalism we are (counter intuitively and verbally burdensomely), describing a sequence of actions with greater import than the nouns. THE OPERATIONALIST GRAMMAR actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result, actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result actor, incentive, action, noun, change in state, result “The people, ever desirous of {A}, take actions {B}, upon these contexts {C}, to produce {D} change in state, thereby attempting to possess {E}, including externalities {F}, which we can judge as objectively G (moral, amoral, immoral or true, undecidable, false). In propertarianism (Natural Law), we have the full set of knowledge to work with and therefore a complete LANGUAGE to work with: psychology(acquisitionism), epistemology, ethics (property in toto), politics, aesthetics, and GRAMMAR. FROM ARGUMENT TO LAW If you add just a few requirements to that grammar, you get formal law constructed from natural law. {terms and definitions } -We … (who) -Whereas we have observed … (definition of state ) -Whereas we desire … (definition of desired state) -We propose …. (series of actions to change state) and we argue …. (how the desired state, the propositions, do not violate the one law of reciprocity.) -Even though this argument is dependent upon … (prior laws) and would be reversed if (prior laws were falsified, or conditions had changed), -And we warranty this argument by ( skin in the game ). -Signed …. -Juried …. …. -Adjudicated. …. …. …. -Recorded. This is an incremental improvement to the natural, common, judge discovered law of anglo saxons that Jefferson attempted to formalize in the US constitution. Our chief function is to incrementally improve that natural law to include the lessons we have learned from over two hundred years of the american experience, in yet another improvement over the hundreds of years of the english experience, and thousands of years of the various germanic, latin, greek, and aryan european traditions. We must correct: The errors of the enlightenment visions of man, the corruption of that document of natural law in the post civil war period by the aggression of the north against the south, and the introduction into that document of amendments that violate natural law. The attempt to defeat meritocratic aristocracy by the invention of a pseudoscientific religion by the cosmopolitan Jews: Boaz, Marx, Freud, Cantor, Mises, the Frankfurt School. The industrialization of deception under mass media, the alliance of finance, commerce, media, academy, and state, to exploit the middle and working classes to pay for the votes of the underclasses, the use of mass immigration of underclasses once their pseudoscientific, pseudorational, and pseudo-moral attempts at overthrow of the civlization had failed. And the intentional undermining of our constitution of natural law, our education systems, our history and our culture, our civic society, our family as the central object of policy, and our ancient aesthetics, and even our most sacred universal requirement for truthful speech regardless of the consequences. And the extraction of wealth from our people by the sale of shares in the economy at interest in order to generate consumption, rather than direct distribution of shares to individual citizens and forcing industry, finance, and state to compete for them – the virtual enslavement of our people. And lastly, the genocide that has been conducted against the white race in order to exterminate the aristocratic civilization by the middle eastern peoples despite having dragged humanity out of ignorance, superstition, hunger, disease, and poverty. All of this is possible by amending and thereby restoring this constitution, and restoring and preserving the ancient rights of anglo saxons and their ancestors: Sovereignty. The Cult of Non Submission. WE WERE FORGED BY TRUTH By the first principle of sovereignty, we were forced to discover and use deflationary truth in everything we have done for thousands of years. We can restore our people by the simple act of restoring truth, non-parasitism, and duty: every man a sheriff, and warrior. This is terribly easy to do. People do not have to believe a law that enforces reciprocity. They need only pursue their own interests and use that law to create reciprocity. And the central problem of our age is the destruction of our families by financial parasitism, international parasitism, and the industrialization of deceit. APOLOGIES I am sorry that this didn’t occur to me earlier. I didn’t realize how helpful it was to state what I considered to be obvious. If you write in the above grammar without the verb to be, you can construct most arguments. Curt Doolittle