Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • NAP AS A SOURCE OF IGNORANCE Our battle against libertinism (Rothbardian Liberta

    NAP AS A SOURCE OF IGNORANCE

    Our battle against libertinism (Rothbardian Libertarianism) is indifferent from the one with Marxists: Desirable but impossible half truths impede the ascertainment of less desirable but possible truths. These desirable half truths serve as what Popper called “Sources of Ignorance”. The NAP is a desirable half truth that functions in practice as a source of ignorance that prevents us from rediscovering the source of a condition of liberty: a militia and a rule of law and a hierarchy of judges, creating and maintaining sovereignty for those who fight, liberty for those who organize, freedom for those who labor, and prosperity for those who depend upon us.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:32:00 UTC

  • THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AGGRESSION We can measure the higher and lower morality o

    THE JUSTIFICATIONS FOR AGGRESSION

    We can measure the higher and lower morality of groups by the scope of property that they protect from parasitism – non-reciprocity.

    (see “Incremental Suppression”)

    it is always moral for a more moral order of people to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purposes of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results.

    (“Investment in the production of reciprocity”)

    If it is affordable, it is immoral to fail to aggress against a less moral order of people for the purpose of increasing the less moral order’s ability to conduct reciprocally beneficial results. Otherwise one passes the cost to future generations, and increases the risk that in a period of shock or weakness the less moral people may cause either or both a decline in property, or a decline in morality of the more moral people.

    (“Defense against the deceit of claiming conviction when one is practicing mere convenience: externalizing costs to others.”)

    As far as I know, arguing against this position cannot be done except by the non-reciprocal export of costs upon others. In other words, the failure to aggress against immoral orders can only be explained by immoral actions.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:31:00 UTC

  • DO NOTHING YOU’D NEED TO GET AWAY WITH NAP: Do what you can get away with. Natur

    DO NOTHING YOU’D NEED TO GET AWAY WITH

    NAP: Do what you can get away with.

    Natural Law: Do nothing you’d need to get away with.

    How about you defer to natural law instead of making excuses: take no action that imposes a cost upon that which another has invested.

    The problem with ‘nap-pers’ is that by stating non aggression without stating what one must not aggress against, is actually saying ‘do what you can get away with’. That’s what the NAP means, and that’s where rothbard got it from.

    AND THAT IS A FACT. SORRY.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 08:05:00 UTC

  • THE ADULT VERSION OF NON AGGRESSION Any version of the test of non-aggression va

    THE ADULT VERSION OF NON AGGRESSION

    Any version of the test of non-aggression varies with shared kinship distance at first, shared production distance second, shared norm distance third, shared law third.

    So the ‘law of non aggression” evolves with the density and complexity of the order(population) of cooperation to INCREASING scopes of property: family, property, normative property, and institutional property.

    The “NAP” functions as a child’s reductio (simplistic) version of this more ‘adult’ necessity of cooperation at scale.

    Thus Endeth the Lesson. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-05 06:15:00 UTC

  • Any version of the test of non-aggression varies with shared kinship distance at

    Any version of the test of non-aggression varies with shared kinship distance at first, shared production distance second, shared norm distance third, shared law third.

    So the ‘law of non aggression” evolves with the density and complexity of the order(population) of cooperation to INCREASING scopes of property: family, property, normative property, and institutional property.

    The “NAP” functions as a child’s reductio (simplistic) version of this more ‘adult’ necessity of cooperation at scale.

    Thus Endeth the Lesson. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-04 20:22:00 UTC

  • What if aliens come? Would they be right in taking the earth?— A right can exi

    —What if aliens come? Would they be right in taking the earth?—

    A right can exist only as a question between peers who are cooperating or may cooperate, or fear not cooperating. Once we are no longer cooperating no ‘right’ exists other than ‘can’. to think otherwise is to fail to mature into an adult. as children we can appeal to parents for judicial resolution (right), as members of a group, appeal to the group for juridical resolution (right), as citizens appeal to the judiciary for juridical resolution (right), and as humans appeal to all sorts of foreign organizations for defense. But when aliens with superior technology come, there is no ‘right’. There is only can. There is no jury judge, or ally to appeal to. Might can make right or wrong, but in the end, if there is to exist ‘right’ it can only be made by might. There is no other possibility. and it is not only foolish to imagine so, criminal to advocate for, but a threat to man, beast, plant, and planet.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 18:33:00 UTC

  • The left has called us dinosaurs for our treatment of sovereignty as sacred, and

    The left has called us dinosaurs for our treatment of sovereignty as sacred, and the natural common aw as our scripture. But what they referred to was in fact older than they: an ‘adult’ – whether or not they intended to.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 15:29:00 UTC

  • The difference between Legal argument and Propertarian (Natural Law) argument, i

    The difference between Legal argument and Propertarian (Natural Law) argument, is that we don’t have to make excuses for ‘rule’ (commands), legislation(commands), and regulation(commands), just whether a disagreement is true and moral – meaning perfectly reciprocal.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 13:30:00 UTC

  • SOVEREIGNTY = perfect (exceptionless) reciprocity by perfect (exceptionless) rec

    SOVEREIGNTY = perfect (exceptionless) reciprocity by perfect (exceptionless) reciprocal insurance, in numbers sufficient to deny violations of reciprocity to all possible (exeptionless) extant numbers.

    PERFECT RECIPROCITY = limiting one’s actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer of property – in – toto, limited to productive externalities.

    PROPERTY IN TOTO = That in which one has expended any resource with intent to obtain an interest, without imposing a cost on that which another has expended a resource with the intent to obtain an interest. Synonym: ‘demonstrated property’

    INTEREST: = ergo, leaving only homesteading, transformation, and exchange, as means of obtaining an interest. Synonym: monopoly share (a possession), proportional share (citizenship in a commons), proportional share (private in a common contract), demonstrated share ( a denial of opportunity( such as norms and traditions)

    RESOURCE : life, body, effort, time, attention, kin, material possession, material interest (share), organizational interest, normative interest, institutional interest, informational interest. Synonym: “capital”.

    YIELDS:

    Possession(insured by self defense) > consensual property (insured by reciprocity) > normative property(insured by normative enforcement) > property right (insured by third party enforcement) > natural right(ideal between government and citizens) or human right(ideal between governments). Technically speaking,under rule of law, under natural judge-discovered common law, under perfect reciprocity (sovereignty), natural rights can be brought into existence.

    Under these conditions it is possible to create sovereignty in fact, liberty by permission, freedom by utility, and subsidy by preference.

    (Good luck getting that degree of precision out of parasitic libertines) 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 11:27:00 UTC

  • *Never turn the other cheek

    *Never turn the other cheek.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-31 06:45:00 UTC