Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • INTENTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT. VIA POSITIVA (STORIES) HELP ORGANIZE BUT VIA NEGATIVA

    INTENTIONS ARE IRRELEVANT. VIA POSITIVA (STORIES) HELP ORGANIZE BUT VIA NEGATIVA (LAW) DECIDES OUTCOMES.

    The purpose of Natural Law is to prevent harm, resolve disputes, and force restitution. If no dispute, no harm, no externality exists then this is not a matter for law. law evolves via negativa. by discovering methods of conflict because of parasitism and preventing them by recording them as a warning that one will be forced to pay restitution, and as a help to those who want to know how to avoid conflict. It is a purely empirical process.

    If one seeks to build consensus that is not the function of the law (via negativa). Yet if one seeks to build consensus by MEANS THAT CANNOT BE WARRANTED, and means that cannot be testified to, then one has failed to perform due diligence against harm, and one can be brought up for restitution.

    Intentions are irrelevant.

    The ease of transfer is irrelevant.

    The ‘good’ of the outcome is irrelevant.

    Those are statemetns of positiva (intention and excuse making)

    However, when we come into dispute, disputes are decidable. All differences in property in toto are decidable.

    If one does not impose a cost against property in toto then the matter is undecidable, precisely because it is immaterial. What you do in your own head that does not manifest itself as an imposition of costs upon the costs paid by others is irrelevant. (and reciprocity applies to others).

    If you want a positive political philosophy (methods of cooperating in the production of commons) then we have a spectrum of options from near dictatorship to near anarchy to choose from. I don’t need to list them. We know them.

    If you want a positive personal philosophy (generative options) we have at least these methods to choose from: , dreaming/free-association, the occult/new-age, superstition, myth, literature, Tradition/habit, rules of thumb/imitation, general rules of arbitrary precision (truth/science/history).

    if you want an mental discipline mindfulness discipline we can achieve this through drugs/dreaming, suppression/meditation, internal-(recursive)-conversation/prayer, disciplined and restive ritual, contemplative writing, disciplined action-planning(stoicism), physical exercise/hiking-running-walking.

    But if you want to DECIDE between competing wants, or decide between matters of conflict, there is only one possible method of decidability.

    Now I might prefer a highly redistributed homogenous polity under strict rule of natural law, requiring all of that redistribution to be truthfully stated in the law, transparently performed and objectively measured. And I might prefer that order simply because I am highly independent by virtue of my talents and skills, and people seem to find me useful. But I can see others who are not so independent, not possessed of talents and skills, and not found useful, preferring a different order – although it is hard to understand a better order for getting it to them morally.

    Now, others might prefer a different order for immoral reasons. Those reasons might be obvious (inabilty to compete in a market). Or they might be less obvious: inability to organize toward a productive end truthfllly. or they might be insidious: attempting to disorganize or organize toward a harmful end.

    But all of these cases are decidable.

    But in order for a case to be decidable, someone’s interests (property in toto) must have been subject to harm because of it.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 13:04:00 UTC

  • There no reason for Defamation, Libel, and Slander to cause damage under common

    There no reason for Defamation, Libel, and Slander to cause damage under common law. This leads to nonsense. The only natural law requirement for defamation, libel, and slander is that the speech is false. In fact, I am not sure, given the Cosmopolitan history of “heaping undue praise” that “undue praise” should not accompany defamation, libel, and slander.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 13:36:00 UTC

  • The first question of ethics (cooperation) is ‘why do I not kill you and take yo

    The first question of ethics (cooperation) is ‘why do I not kill you and take your things?’

    The first question of debate is also ‘why do I not kill you and take your things’?

    The answer to both questions is, “Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding for both parties – at least over the medium and long term.”

    But if we we lie, if we cast insults, then we are de-facto, not cooperating, to produce disproportionately rewarding ends. So ethics ends.

    And if we tolerate the existence of people who engage in lie, insult, and fraud, then we are not cooperating with those with whom we cooperate. So Morality Ends.

    So, unbound by cooperation, unbound by ethics, and unbound by morality, we return to violence as of greater benefit than suffering lie and insult and non-cooperation.

    So it is only moral that I kill you and take your things.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 08:31:00 UTC

  • LOWER ORDER / HIGHER ORDER In my work I use the incremental, evolutionary, suppr

    LOWER ORDER / HIGHER ORDER

    In my work I use the incremental, evolutionary, suppression of parasitism in all its forms via natural judge discovered common law, as a means of causing the gradual increase in trust, and the gradual increase in the production of goods, at gradually increasing rates. (you can see this in Fukuyama’s work as well, although as an asian he prefers the monopoly bureaucracy instead of the western model of a market of sovereigns under the common law of sovereigns.)

    So I refer to higher orders as those with higher trust (lower corruption) and the corresponding institutions.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 08:22:00 UTC

  • WE ALL GO THE SAME ROUTE … Classical liberal > libertarian > anarcho capitalis

    WE ALL GO THE SAME ROUTE …

    Classical liberal > libertarian > anarcho capitalism > neo reactionary > Sovereignty (Natural Law Nomocracy) – ie: “Propertarianism”.

    Sovereignty: the oath of the initiatic brotherhood of warriors.

    (A simple sequence: the evolution of in one’s belief in the nature of man: from 1-enlightenment hopeful, 2-mid 20th century frustrated, to 3-late 2000’s resigned, to 4-current committed-to-action)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 17:16:00 UTC

  • (excerpt) ***And from there we will realize that preferences do not coincide, an

    (excerpt)

    ***And from there we will realize that preferences do not coincide, and so regardless of TRUTH or PREFERENCE the only actions we can take that are True, moral, and preferable are those that constitute productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, limited to productive externalities.

    And it is that last sentence that is the basis of western civilization, and the single principle from which it all evolved.

    The jeffersonian, anglo-saxon, germanic, aryan, indo-european oath of reciprocity under sovereignty: the oath of the intiatic brotherhood of warriors. …. Not soldiers, warriors.***

    We unfortunately, imprecisely, call this oath and brotherhood “aristocratic egalitarianism”. Which obscures its causality.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-25 14:31:00 UTC

  • WHAT’S “FAIR”? Q&A: What is ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’? — Jason Cockrell Fair (moral):

    WHAT’S “FAIR”?

    Q&A: What is ‘fair’ or ‘unfair’? — Jason Cockrell

    Fair (moral): reciprocity. meaning actions limited to (a) productive, (b) fully informed, (c) warrantied, (d) voluntary transfers, (e) limited to productive externalities.

    This prohibits profiting from another’s loss, and the construction of hazards: parasitism.

    It’s an easier comparison when we think of adult vs child (asymmetry of knowledge and understanding). We tend to be more ‘ok’ with fucking over other adults. We are not ‘ok’ with fucking over children.

    But this is because we falsely consider other adults ‘equal’ or ‘peers’ under christianity and the enlightenment. When in fact, the adult-child disparity in knowledge and understanding increases rapidly in a division of knowledge, and labor.

    I was taught ‘noblesse oblige’ which is that we don’t take advantage of the lower classes, but we hold those above us to the same standard we hold ourselves to in relation to those below us.

    Judgement flows downhill, and so does forgiveness. The ignorant cannot judge and since they cannot judge they cannot forgive.

    Hence the value of christianity in creating divisions of knowledge and labor.

    Christianity + Aristocracy is a good combination. Forgive because you cannot judge, and take responsibility, because you can judge.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 09:56:00 UTC

  • ARE MORAL CODES MORAL? Q&A: —“Are moral codes moral?”—Fredrick George Welfar

    ARE MORAL CODES MORAL?

    Q&A: —“Are moral codes moral?”—Fredrick George Welfare

    A difference between normative, descriptive, and necessary ethics.

    NEGATIVA: Necessary ethics are moral (true),

    EXISTENTIAL: Descriptive (how they are practiced) exist.

    POSITIVA: Normative ethics (how we imagine they should be practiced).(theoretical)

    This terminology is confusing because existential ethics are in evidence as ‘norms’, and normative ethics are not those that are practiced as norms, but the study of what should perhaps be practiced as norms. I prefer “Necessary, Descriptive, and Theoretical.”

    To make mattes worse, existing ethical systems (norms) consist of portfolio of various ‘contracts’, any provision of which my be immoral but in concert, when practiced produce moral ends (or not). The same goes for the combination of moral provisions, can produce immoral ends (although this is harder.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 05:39:00 UTC

  • Law of Nature, Natural Law, Moral Literature, Mythology, Spirituality, & Dreams

    Law of Nature, Natural Law, Moral Literature, Mythology, Spirituality, & Dreams.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:38:00 UTC

  • No one can fight in the sheriffs, militia, military, for you. Fighting is a non-

    No one can fight in the sheriffs, militia, military, for you. Fighting is a non-substitutable good. If for no other reason than you cannot perform restitution for losses incurred. Compensation perhaps. But never restitution. If you cannot perform restitution then the good is not substitutable.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 17:46:00 UTC