Theme: Reciprocity

  • The Second Principle of Freedom of Religion is Reciprocity. So if a religion vio

    The Second Principle of Freedom of Religion is Reciprocity. So if a religion violates the principle of reciprocity, then it cannot be claimed as a fundamental right, since reciprocity is a necessary fundamental right.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 13:56:00 UTC

  • Hoppe starts with the assumption of the rationality of cooperation. He achieves

    Hoppe starts with the assumption of the rationality of cooperation. He achieves this by four arguments:

    1) Isolation: Crusoe’s Island, rather than competing populations.

    2) Scarcity of Goods (rather than scarcity of cooperation)

    3) Argumentation and Non Contradiction (rather than incentives)

    4) the rationality of cooperation or avoidance, vs the rationality of predation, parasitism, boycott, or cooperation.

    However, this isn’t ‘true’ in any sense of the word. It’s half true. Like most cosmopolitanisms it is a half truth relying upon suggestion for completion of the imaginary construct. Its appealing to your altrusim. To your ‘libertarian instincts” rather than your reason. What is unseen (unstated) is more important than what is stated.

    Instead, I start with:

    1) Competition: The Pontic steppe populated with competing groups across the european plain, and the difficulty in constructing property under those conditions.

    2) Cooperation: ensuring cooperation is rational: why would I not just kill you and take your stuff? Because this is the starting point of negotiations.

    3) The Scarcity of Cooperation: the only substantial scarcity is cooperation. It is cooperation that makes goods and services not scarce.

    4) The Scarcity of Time: Cooperation reduces the time cost of goods, so that we make everything cheaper.

    5) The incremental suppression of parasitism. To maintain incentives to cooperate under increasingly complex cooperation we must incrementally suppress every innovation in parasitism.

    6) The expansion of suppression (colonization) of less parasitic cultures.

    This is the difference between Hoppe’s rational justification, and my scientific explanation.

    Curt Doolittle


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 08:45:00 UTC

  • You either have natural law, natural rights, and cooperation. Or you have unnatu

    You either have natural law, natural rights, and cooperation. Or you have unnatural law, arbitrary permission, and slavery.

    There really isn’t a choice.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 05:33:00 UTC

  • DEBT(RESTITUTION:JUSTICE) VS PARASITISM(INJUSTICE) (important post) PARASITISM (

    DEBT(RESTITUTION:JUSTICE) VS PARASITISM(INJUSTICE)

    (important post)

    PARASITISM (EXTRACTION: INJUSTICE : WAR)

    Political Parasitism : Forcible Redistribution to non-kin (war).

    Political Harm: Forcible Maintenance of Suicidal Commons (war).

    Political Debt : Child support, Alimony, Common Property (war).

    Usury Debt: Predatory Financing Debt (asymmetric knowledge, unproductive, warrantied (no skin in the game), involuntary, causing externalities) (war)

    —VS—

    DEBT (RESTITUTION: JUSTICE: COOPERATION)

    Debt: Forcible Transfer of Restitution for Non Predatory Debt (fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary, free of externality.)

    Restitution Debt: Forcible transfer of restitution.

    Punishment Debt: Imposition of costs for betrayal.

    The only ‘debt’ is restitution.

    Interest must be earned (productive).


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-23 03:24:00 UTC

  • No, la libertad religiosa no puede ser un derecho natural

    Texto original de Curt Doolittle

    Traducido al castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

    La libertad religiosa es un derecho fundamental- La Heritage Foundation

    Esto no puede ser lógicamente verdad, Ningún derecho fundamental puede existir si viola la ley natural. 
    La religión debe ser compatible con la ley natural, o si no, no es religión sino política disfrazada de religión o guerra. Pero no es ninguna forma de religión.

    Así que es una contradicción afirmar que las religiones son incompatibles con la ley natural puedan ser derechos naturales- Eso quiere decir que no hay derechos naturales.

    Así que estoy en desacuerdo con la libertad religiosa y la libre expresión, en vez de ello: Requerir que el discurso honesto y la religión honesta sean compatibles con la ley natural.
    La religión permanece honesta a pesar del uso de los mitos, las parábolas, alegorías, escrituras y rituales. Siempre y cuando es´ten de acuerdo con principios que se rijan por esas analogías: compatibilidad con ley natural.

    La cristianidad es compatible con la ley natural. El polimoralismo y la ética dual no son compatibles con la ley natural.

    La cristianidad nos aconseja cómo actuar en concierto con la ley natural. El Islam, el judaísmo y otras religiones nos recomiendan acciones para expresamente contravenir la ley natural. Y esas religiones establecen que contienen leyes para su cumplimiento y seguimiento – el Halacha judío, y la Sharia islámica claman ser leyes divinas, y aun así so incompatibles con la ley natural. 

    Los cristianos han sido tolerantes con las herejías, y religiones que compiten con ellos para poder prevenir el mandato de una religión estatal. y por ende proteger la ley natural, y que la independencia de la sabiduría religiosa basada sobre la ley natural protege el daño que podrían causar los hombres. 
    Ni la cristianidad ni la ley natural nos prohíben la purga de las religiones inmorales que violan la ley natural. 
    Ni estamos prohibidos de las filosofías que violan la ley natural: De haber derrotado el marxismo leninismo más temprano que debimos haberlo hecho, habríamos salvado un millón de almas de sufrir. 
    Permitimos que el islam caiga sobre Europa occidental por su violencia e inmoralidad, y hemos fracasado de execrarlo de la Europa del este, áfrica del norte y Bizantium, Miren lo que ha causado nuestro fracaso.

    Estamos en el medio de llegar al segundo más grande engaño después de la conversión forzosa de los romanos: un intento seudocientífico de colonización occidental: antropología boaziana, psicología freudiana, sociología marxista, platonismo cantoriano matemático, economía correlativa marxista keynesiana,, ilustración igualitaria, y las esquinas filosóficas del marxismo leninismo, neo conservadurismo trotskistas, straussiano, y libertarianismo rothbardiano-randiao, y el feminismo neo-puritano-postmoderno. 

    Y hemos entrado en contacto con una tercera ola, esta vez no ejercida por la fuerza (la conquista islámica), no por la conversión religiosa (cristiandad judaica), ni por la conversión pseudocientífica (cosmopolitismo judío), ni por el engaño evidente (postmodernismo, feminismo, y propaganda)

    El conflicto actual está despertando, y la voluntad para execrar este segundo intento de colonizar occidente, a pesar de nuestro siglo de tolerancia. La tolerancia que ha sido abusada por todos.

    NO existen reglas generales ilimitadas. Nuestro retraso en descubrir la teoría de la relatividad nos ha enseñado esto. No hay premisas ilimitadas. No hay teorías deontológicas infinitas que no sean tautologías. 

    El límite de la tolerancia religiosa es la ley natural.

    Todo lo demás es sólo un acto de guerra usando la máscara de la religión para engañarnos al depredar nuestro altruismo.

    Nosotros somos el pueblo que inventó la honestidad. Rescatamos a la humanidad de la ignorancia, el misticismo, enfermedad y pobreza usando nuestra tecnología honestidad: ciencia y ley natural.

    Nosotros somos el único pueblo que lo ha hecho

    Los otros lo odian.
    No debemos perecer en esta tierra

    Curt Doolittle
    Kiev, Ucrania

    El instituto propietarista 

  • No, la libertad religiosa no puede ser un derecho natural

    Texto original de Curt Doolittle

    Traducido al castellano por Alberto R. Zambrano U.

    La libertad religiosa es un derecho fundamental- La Heritage Foundation

    Esto no puede ser lógicamente verdad, Ningún derecho fundamental puede existir si viola la ley natural. 
    La religión debe ser compatible con la ley natural, o si no, no es religión sino política disfrazada de religión o guerra. Pero no es ninguna forma de religión.

    Así que es una contradicción afirmar que las religiones son incompatibles con la ley natural puedan ser derechos naturales- Eso quiere decir que no hay derechos naturales.

    Así que estoy en desacuerdo con la libertad religiosa y la libre expresión, en vez de ello: Requerir que el discurso honesto y la religión honesta sean compatibles con la ley natural.
    La religión permanece honesta a pesar del uso de los mitos, las parábolas, alegorías, escrituras y rituales. Siempre y cuando es´ten de acuerdo con principios que se rijan por esas analogías: compatibilidad con ley natural.

    La cristianidad es compatible con la ley natural. El polimoralismo y la ética dual no son compatibles con la ley natural.

    La cristianidad nos aconseja cómo actuar en concierto con la ley natural. El Islam, el judaísmo y otras religiones nos recomiendan acciones para expresamente contravenir la ley natural. Y esas religiones establecen que contienen leyes para su cumplimiento y seguimiento – el Halacha judío, y la Sharia islámica claman ser leyes divinas, y aun así so incompatibles con la ley natural. 

    Los cristianos han sido tolerantes con las herejías, y religiones que compiten con ellos para poder prevenir el mandato de una religión estatal. y por ende proteger la ley natural, y que la independencia de la sabiduría religiosa basada sobre la ley natural protege el daño que podrían causar los hombres. 
    Ni la cristianidad ni la ley natural nos prohíben la purga de las religiones inmorales que violan la ley natural. 
    Ni estamos prohibidos de las filosofías que violan la ley natural: De haber derrotado el marxismo leninismo más temprano que debimos haberlo hecho, habríamos salvado un millón de almas de sufrir. 
    Permitimos que el islam caiga sobre Europa occidental por su violencia e inmoralidad, y hemos fracasado de execrarlo de la Europa del este, áfrica del norte y Bizantium, Miren lo que ha causado nuestro fracaso.

    Estamos en el medio de llegar al segundo más grande engaño después de la conversión forzosa de los romanos: un intento seudocientífico de colonización occidental: antropología boaziana, psicología freudiana, sociología marxista, platonismo cantoriano matemático, economía correlativa marxista keynesiana,, ilustración igualitaria, y las esquinas filosóficas del marxismo leninismo, neo conservadurismo trotskistas, straussiano, y libertarianismo rothbardiano-randiao, y el feminismo neo-puritano-postmoderno. 

    Y hemos entrado en contacto con una tercera ola, esta vez no ejercida por la fuerza (la conquista islámica), no por la conversión religiosa (cristiandad judaica), ni por la conversión pseudocientífica (cosmopolitismo judío), ni por el engaño evidente (postmodernismo, feminismo, y propaganda)

    El conflicto actual está despertando, y la voluntad para execrar este segundo intento de colonizar occidente, a pesar de nuestro siglo de tolerancia. La tolerancia que ha sido abusada por todos.

    NO existen reglas generales ilimitadas. Nuestro retraso en descubrir la teoría de la relatividad nos ha enseñado esto. No hay premisas ilimitadas. No hay teorías deontológicas infinitas que no sean tautologías. 

    El límite de la tolerancia religiosa es la ley natural.

    Todo lo demás es sólo un acto de guerra usando la máscara de la religión para engañarnos al depredar nuestro altruismo.

    Nosotros somos el pueblo que inventó la honestidad. Rescatamos a la humanidad de la ignorancia, el misticismo, enfermedad y pobreza usando nuestra tecnología honestidad: ciencia y ley natural.

    Nosotros somos el único pueblo que lo ha hecho

    Los otros lo odian.
    No debemos perecer en esta tierra

    Curt Doolittle
    Kiev, Ucrania

    El instituto propietarista 

  • No, Religious Freedom Cannot Be a Fundamental Natural Right

    (read it) (learn it) (share it) (rhetorical weaponry)

    —“Religious freedom is a fundamental right”— The Heritage Foundation

    [T]his cannot logically be true. No fundamental right can exist if it violates natural law. Religion must be compatible with Natural Law or it is not religion but politics in religious dress, or warfare in disguise, but not religion. So it is a contradiction to state that religions that are incompatible with natural law can be claimed a natural right – that is to say there are not natural rights. So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Instead: Require Truthful Speech and Truthful Religion: Compatibility with Natural Law. Religion remains truthful despite the use myth, parable, allegory, scripture and ritual, as long as it conveys truthful principles by those analogies: compatibility with natural law. Christianity is compatible with Natural Law. Poly-moralism and Dualist ethics are not compatible with natural law. Christianity advises us how to act in concert with natural law. Islam, Judaism, and a handful of others recommend actions an expressly counter to natural law. And they state that they contain laws – the Jewish Halakha and the Islamic Sharia both claim divine laws, yet they are incompatible with natural law. Christians have been tolerant of heresies and competing religions in order to prevent the mandate of a state religion, and therefore to protect natural law, and the independence of religious wisdom based upon natural law from harm by the folly of men. Neither Christianity nor Natural Law prohibit us from the expurgation of immoral religions that violate natural law. Nor are we prohibited from philosophies that violate natural law: had we defeated marxism-leninism earlier then we would have saved a hundred million souls from suffering. We cast Islam out of western europa for its violence and immorality, and failed to throw it out of eastern europa, north Africa, and Byzantium. Look at what our failure wrought wherever we failed. We are in the midst of throwing of the second great deceit after the forcible conversion of the romans: the pseudoscientific attempt at western colonization: boazian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, cantorian mathematical platonism, marxist-keynesian correlative economics, enlightenment equality, and the philosophical corners of marxist socialism, trotskyist-straussian neo-conservatism, and randian-rothbardian libertinism, and neo-puritanism+postmodern-feminism. And we have come into contact with the third wave, this time not by force (islamic conquest), not by religious conversion (jewish christianity), not by pseudoscientific conversion (jewish cosmopolitanism), not by outright deception (postmodernism, feminism, and propaganda). We the current conflict is our awakening will to evict this second attempt at colonization of the west, despite our century of tolerance – a tolerance that was abused by everyone we tolerated. There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering the theory of Relativity taught us this. There are no unlimited premises. No infinite deontological theories other than tautologies. The limit of religious tolerance is Natural Law. Everything else is just another act of war wearing a mask of religion to deceive us by preying upon our altruism. We are the people who invented truth. We rescued mankind from ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty using our technology of truth: science and natural law. We are the only people to have done it. They others hate it. We must not perish from this earth. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Keiv, Ukraine

  • No, Religious Freedom Cannot Be a Fundamental Natural Right

    (read it) (learn it) (share it) (rhetorical weaponry)

    —“Religious freedom is a fundamental right”— The Heritage Foundation

    [T]his cannot logically be true. No fundamental right can exist if it violates natural law. Religion must be compatible with Natural Law or it is not religion but politics in religious dress, or warfare in disguise, but not religion. So it is a contradiction to state that religions that are incompatible with natural law can be claimed a natural right – that is to say there are not natural rights. So I have come to disagree with freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Instead: Require Truthful Speech and Truthful Religion: Compatibility with Natural Law. Religion remains truthful despite the use myth, parable, allegory, scripture and ritual, as long as it conveys truthful principles by those analogies: compatibility with natural law. Christianity is compatible with Natural Law. Poly-moralism and Dualist ethics are not compatible with natural law. Christianity advises us how to act in concert with natural law. Islam, Judaism, and a handful of others recommend actions an expressly counter to natural law. And they state that they contain laws – the Jewish Halakha and the Islamic Sharia both claim divine laws, yet they are incompatible with natural law. Christians have been tolerant of heresies and competing religions in order to prevent the mandate of a state religion, and therefore to protect natural law, and the independence of religious wisdom based upon natural law from harm by the folly of men. Neither Christianity nor Natural Law prohibit us from the expurgation of immoral religions that violate natural law. Nor are we prohibited from philosophies that violate natural law: had we defeated marxism-leninism earlier then we would have saved a hundred million souls from suffering. We cast Islam out of western europa for its violence and immorality, and failed to throw it out of eastern europa, north Africa, and Byzantium. Look at what our failure wrought wherever we failed. We are in the midst of throwing of the second great deceit after the forcible conversion of the romans: the pseudoscientific attempt at western colonization: boazian anthropology, freudian psychology, marxist sociology, cantorian mathematical platonism, marxist-keynesian correlative economics, enlightenment equality, and the philosophical corners of marxist socialism, trotskyist-straussian neo-conservatism, and randian-rothbardian libertinism, and neo-puritanism+postmodern-feminism. And we have come into contact with the third wave, this time not by force (islamic conquest), not by religious conversion (jewish christianity), not by pseudoscientific conversion (jewish cosmopolitanism), not by outright deception (postmodernism, feminism, and propaganda). We the current conflict is our awakening will to evict this second attempt at colonization of the west, despite our century of tolerance – a tolerance that was abused by everyone we tolerated. There are no unlimited general rules. Our delay in discovering the theory of Relativity taught us this. There are no unlimited premises. No infinite deontological theories other than tautologies. The limit of religious tolerance is Natural Law. Everything else is just another act of war wearing a mask of religion to deceive us by preying upon our altruism. We are the people who invented truth. We rescued mankind from ignorance, mysticism, disease, and poverty using our technology of truth: science and natural law. We are the only people to have done it. They others hate it. We must not perish from this earth. Curt Doolittle The Philosophy of Aristocracy The Propertarian Institute Keiv, Ukraine

  • Your argument violates the test of reciprocity. Religions must reciprocate toler

    Your argument violates the test of reciprocity. Religions must reciprocate tolerance. Atheism and Islam to not.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 13:34:08 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690527872696635392

    Reply addressees: @Heritage @kamijane29

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690524759734378496


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Heritage

    Religious freedom is a fundamental right—a right America has a proud tradition of respecting. https://t.co/KqAXaSreDv

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690524759734378496

  • Christianity is compatible with natural law. Polymoralism and Dualist ethics are

    Christianity is compatible with natural law. Polymoralism and Dualist ethics are not compatible with natural law.


    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-22 13:29:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690526790163505152

    Reply addressees: @Heritage

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690524759734378496


    IN REPLY TO:

    @Heritage

    Religious freedom is a fundamental right—a right America has a proud tradition of respecting. https://t.co/KqAXaSreDv

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/690524759734378496