Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • WHICH STATEMENT DO YOU IDENTIFY MOST WITH? 1) “I agree not to subjugate you, pre

    WHICH STATEMENT DO YOU IDENTIFY MOST WITH?

    1) “I agree not to subjugate you, prey upon you, kill you, if our cooperation is more beneficial than your defeat.”

    (male-aristocracy-conservative: “Father”)

    2) “I agree to cooperate and invest in common goods as long as it’s not against the interests of me, my family, kin, and people. Otherwise I choose not to cooperate, and i am happy to defend myself, my family, my kin, and my people.”

    (male-burgher-libertarian : “Brother”)

    3) “I agree to cooperate with the group as long as I am not left behind and obtain a share of production, but I will inhibit cooperation if I am left behind or denied a share of production.”

    (female – socialist: “Mother-Daughter”)

    4) “I want to be left alone, but allowed to participate in the commercial market.”

    (male – Libertine – anarchist )

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 12:04:00 UTC

  • Definition: Natural Law

    PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law) Thou shalt not, by word, deed, absence of word or deed, impose or allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

    NOTE: Fully understanding this one law may also require: 1) the knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest. 2) the definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against *and* have demonstrated an interest. 3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services. If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really). This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.

  • Definition: Natural Law

    PROPOSED FINAL DEFINITION OF NATURAL LAW The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law) Thou shalt not, by word, deed, absence of word or deed, impose or allow the the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly, where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

    NOTE: Fully understanding this one law may also require: 1) the knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest. 2) the definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against *and* have demonstrated an interest. 3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity. 4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services. If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really). This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.

  • NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN I define Natural Law as: NEGATIVA: non-provocation:

    NATURAL LAW OF SOVEREIGN MEN

    I define Natural Law as: NEGATIVA: non-provocation: non imposition of costs against property in toto: that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in without imposing costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in. POSITIVA: reward: the requirement that we limit our actions that affect the property-in-toto of others to those that cause productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 10:39:00 UTC

  • SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/a-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2/A SHORT COURSE IN PROPERTARIAN MORALITY

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 13:12:00 UTC

  • NATURAL LAW AND THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS (Curt with Summary by Bill Joslin) In

    NATURAL LAW AND THE INFORMATIONAL COMMONS

    (Curt with Summary by Bill Joslin)

    In the end, any moral commons is possible, while no immoral commons is possible. This allows for competing moral commons but denies competition from immoral commons.

    I have found no reason why police have discretion to suggest prosecution except where there is evidence of conspiracy to prevent prosecution.

    I have found no reason why police have discretion to suggest prosecution of crimes against the informational commons when all citizens are interested parties and can prosecute violations of the informational commons – or prosecute attempts to prevent truth from entering the informational commons.

    Islam would not survive, some of the ‘pseudo-arts’ would not survive, just as pseudo-rationalism, and pseudo-science would not survive.

    Conversely can you imagine the INDIRECT education this would provide to people in the same way that scientific reasoning has indirectly produced the Flynn effect (along with reducing the number of the low end outliers)?

    Imagine a world where disinformation and deception are readily eliminated from the public discourse. How would that effect private discourse?

    one does not need a positiva program. we need only a negativa program. every person on earth will then work to produce a host of positiva programs.

    Most of philosophical history, as most of religious history, has been attempting to develop positivia programs. And they all result in stagnation.

    Meanwhile the west incrementally evolves the common law and we invent philosophies and ideologies and narratives in each generation.

    By a monopoly negativa of the Natural, empirical, judge discovered, common law, we create the possibility of a market in everything – including information.

    But just as we have deprived people of murder, then harm, then theft, then fraud, then conspiracy, we can deprive people of disinformation and suggestion – an extension of interpersonal fraud by the use of media.

    —“^^ okay. So now… if the rights and privileges afford police (to arrest and detain) and judges (to decide resolution) is extended to the whole populace (and incomplete terms but will leave for the moment) then anyone can enforce the law – the larger the market the less likely the market can be used for abuse. Every man and judge, every man an enforcer, every man a gaurd. One natural law makes this possible as the burden to fully understand it does not have tlnearly the same costs as a law degree today”—Bill Joslin

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 09:03:00 UTC

  • “We need to put the NATURAL back into NATURAL LAW.”— Felicity J. Sharpe

    —“We need to put the NATURAL back into NATURAL LAW.”— Felicity J. Sharpe

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-07 20:28:00 UTC

  • DECIDABILITY IN ETHICS AND MORALITY All NECESSARY cross-group ethical, and moral

    DECIDABILITY IN ETHICS AND MORALITY

    All NECESSARY cross-group ethical, and moral propositions are decidable by reciprocity (natural law).

    All NORMATIVE in group ethical and moral propositions are decidable by natural law if they are not decidable by normative means.

    All PREFERENTIAL interpersonal ethical and moral propositions are decidable by normative means, if they are not decidable by personal means. If not decidable by normative means, then by natural law.

    LEGiSLATIVE AND REGULATORY LAW has absolutely nothing to do with whether a proposition is ethical or moral – AT ALL. This is despite the fact that common law evolved, religous law evolved, state law evolved, and legislative law evolved, to resolve interpersonal, inter familial, inter tribal, inter class, and inter national conflicts.

    Most questions of ethics are the result of nothing other than conflation of that which is local and different into that which is universal as an attempt to claim authority for one’s personal, normative, or national preferences.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-04 11:56:00 UTC

  • DISAGREE WITH MOLYNEUX? —“What are some things you disagree with Stefan Molyne

    DISAGREE WITH MOLYNEUX?

    —“What are some things you disagree with Stefan Molyneux on? I’m really interested in knowing.”— Carolyn Scudder

    Stefan is still practicing rule ethics, instead of outcome ethics. The question is why is he doing so?

    SEQUENCE:

    Imitation ethics(child) -> Virtue ethics(young adult) -> Rule Ethics(adult) -> Outcome Ethics (mature adult).

    So just as one practices justificaitonism under rule ethics (excuse making) as we practice in morality and law, one practices criticism under outcome ethics as we practice in science.

    So when one uses a lower standard of ethics when a higher standard is available, that means one is ignoring information that would contravene one’s priors.

    In other words, (as most of you others state less precisely) Stefan continues making excuses for his priors just like theologists make excuses for their priors.

    Why? Because reframing your entire belief system and stating that it is a malinvestment is very difficult to do.

    What we have seen is Stefan incrementally has moved to the right as he is no longer able to maintain a fiction.

    What he has NOT done is move from rationalism to science (as I have done).

    This is the same mistake Hoppe has made: using justificationism instead of science to make arguments.

    HERE IS WHAT ONE MUST DO:

    1) survive a test of full accounting (not cherry picking and falsification)

    2) survive a test of rational action (rational possibility and falsification) AND

    3) survive a test of external correspondence (empirical evidence) and non-correspondence (falsification).

    So if you cannot survive BOTH tests then we as the audience cannot determine whether you are engaged in ignorance, error, or deceit.

    For most people it is a question of ignorance, error, self-deception (confirmation bias), and wishful thinking, rather than outright deception.

    We are all victims of wishful thinking.

    —“some specifics would be dope. The theoretical pontificating is nice and all but walking people through with an anecdote would get the point across a lot better”—Joe Drozd

    I find the pejorative ‘pontificating’ insulting. If you mean instead that I must educate people on the limits of rational justificationism (explanation) vs scientific criticism (survival) then that is a non-trivial proposition that most people will need to read at least Popper to understand – but it is how science is conducted: like evolution, scientific statements must SURVIVE criticism, whereas justificationary statements must only CONVEY meaning.

    So any truth proposition requires that we first (a) construct a narrative capable of communicationg meaning, and then (b) insure we haven’t engaged in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading/framing/overloading, or deceit.

    virtue ethics convey introspectively imitative meaning – essentially general principles conveyed by myths. Rule ethics convey more precise recipes and prohibitions – essentially general rules of moral and legal behavior. Outcome ethics convey much more precise tests of ethical and moral action.

    So while virtue, rule, and outcome ethics require increasing knowledge and skill to exercise, and we can only be expected to exercise the ethical model available to us given our age, intelligence, and experience, we can also invert this statement and say that if one has the age, intelligence and experience to employ a higher ethical standard, we must ask why one does not.

    Or put more precisely, any question of ethics must survive tests of all models: virtue, rule, and outcome ethics, just as all true (scientific) statements must survive tests of voluntary transfer, rational possibility, and empirical evidence.

    And we can generalize this statement into the logical rule that reality consists of multiple dimensions, and just as mathematics consists of disciplines that increasingly test additional dimensions (identity, numbers, ratios, functions, space, and motion), scientific statements must survive tests of similar dimensions: identity(categorical), internal consistency(logical), external consistency(empirical), full accounting (scope consistency), moral consistency (reciprocal consistency).

    Or if you want to simplify it – anyone who tries to make morally justificationary arguments in lieu of empirical outcomes is impossible to distinguish from someone who is lying.

    ie: Stefan practices deontological (rule) ethics, as a means of avoiding the falsfiication of those rules by empirical evidence.

    I suspect he does this as do all people who are drawn to libertarian ehtics, out of a desire to justify his moral intiutions rather than attempt to falsify them and adopt different ethics he finds less intuitively appealing (as I had to do.)

    What I have found is that Stefan is a moral man, a fantastic educator, and a proponent of liberty. And he is certainly more capable of those roles than I am.

    Furthermore, while I have Thousands of followers, he has tens of thousands. Why? Because there are only thousands of people capable of understanding what I say and there are tens of thousands capable of understanding what he says.

    Just as most people can learn virtue ethics of imitation of heroes, fewer can learn moral and legal rules of while maintaining internal consistency, and fewer still can learn outcome ethics in enough fields to make use of them, and fewer still can learn what I teach which is essentially strictly constructed natural law: social science in scientific terms.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-01 16:22:00 UTC

  • Why Do Rationalists Avoid Testing via the Empirical, Operational, and Reciprocity?

    1) if we CAN fully expand a sentence, before we test it for internal consistency, and we do not do so, then why? In other words, what is the informational content between an unexpanded sentence, and an expanded sentence? And why would we fail to expand a sentence that can be expanded? What is the difference between the order of terms in mathematics, the order of terms in set statements, and the order of terms in operational language, and the order of terms in fully expanded natural language, and the order of terms in colloquial natural language?
    So if we start with a statement in colloquial language then fully expand it in natural language, then fully expand it in operational language, then it is almost impossible to construct the vast majority of sophomoric pseudo-philosophical questions. 2) The necessity of the prohibition on the verb to-be, (another category of expansion) evolved to prevent stating authoritatively that which is merely subjective opinion. But in addition, it also prevents conflating intention, experience, interpretations, and actions. Of which we can only test actions. 3) Promissory expansion of statements (sentences) evolved to prevent forms of suggestion and conflation. (Instead of Strawson’s light version of performative truth, use promissory – strict -construction that precedes each statement ” I promise that….” 4) In the sequence: 1 – identity (categorically consistent) 2 – logical (internally consistent) 3 – empirical (externally consistent) 4 – operational (existentially consistent) 5 – moral (reciprocally consistent) 6 – fully accounted (scope consistent) 7 – limits and parsimony (limit consistent); each dimension of which increases the informational content we are testing …. we have the choice of choosing to increase the dimensions that we test, using the methodology capable of testing that dimension, or limiting ourselves to the current dimension’s means of testing. Now, when we increase the dimensions, we gain new knowledge which we can then use to recursively test each prior dimension by its method. So why would one choose to test a question by internal consistency rather than external correspondence followed by another test of internal consistency? 5) When testing for internal consistency, we eventually run into the problem of completeness. And while we can construct relatively complete statements axiomatically we cannot do so theoretically (against reality) because of causal density, except in the special cases (reductio).