Curt Doolittle

Theme: Reciprocity

  • (I like this one better as the Aristocratic Egalitarian Challenge) “I do not nee

    (I like this one better as the Aristocratic Egalitarian Challenge)

    “I do not need your permission to attack you.

    I don’t seek your negotiation, approval, or your consent,

    I seek your defeat. And I seek to defeat you completely.

    If you fear your defeat you may seek to understand,

    And if you come to understand, then you may pay restitution;

    And you may end your immoral words and deeds.

    But until you pay restitution, and end your immoral words and deeds,

    I will defeat you by words.

    if I cannot obtain your restitution with words.

    Then I will defeat you with violence, and take it from you.

    Because morality demands that I defeat you.”

    I’ve been working on this for a bit. Not quite there yet.

    It’s all sitting there in history to pick up and be converted into rational language. The problem is it’s wrapped in pseudo-religious poetry of the church. Economics is the language of morality. Even if economists use it to practice immorality.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-08 02:23:00 UTC

  • I AM AN ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIAN It’s a very simple philos

    I AM AN ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN CHRISTIAN LIBERTARIAN

    It’s a very simple philosophy: Speak Truthfully. Respect Property-en-toto. Assist all who agree to liberty. Punish the wicked until you defeat them completely.

    SCORE?

    You are a: Objectivist Libertarian Total-Isolationist Nationalist Moderate

    Collectivism score: -100%

    Authoritarianism score: -67%

    Internationalism score: -100%

    Tribalism score: 33%

    Liberalism score: 0%

    THERE ARENT ANY MEANINGFUL ARISTOCRATIC QUESTIONS ON THE SURVEY. They assume the status quo.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-07 15:05:00 UTC

  • Do no harm Expect no gifts. Earn all rewards. Punish the wicked

    Do no harm

    Expect no gifts.

    Earn all rewards.

    Punish the wicked.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-06 08:05:00 UTC

  • Most libertines are just raising arguments to justify free riding. Really. That’

    Most libertines are just raising arguments to justify free riding.

    Really. That’s all it is.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-04 14:17:00 UTC

  • TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT RESPECTING OTHERS: 1) Which? (a) Every man must be treated w

    TWO QUESTIONS ABOUT RESPECTING OTHERS:

    1) Which?

    (a) Every man must be treated with respect or he may punish you for disrespect.

    Or

    (b) Every man must earn respect before he may punish you for disrespect.

    2) Which produces a more scientific result? (a) or (b)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 14:50:00 UTC

  • FOR HONOR AND GLORY Honor = Remember, Record, and Celebrate Glory = Reward with

    FOR HONOR AND GLORY

    Honor = Remember, Record, and Celebrate

    Glory = Reward with Celebration

    Meaning? Your offspring, your name, AND your deeds will outlive you.

    TERMS

    Thou shalt not lie,

    ….nor permit others to lie.

    Thou shalt not steal,

    ….nor permit others to steal.

    Thou shalt not harm,

    ….nor permit others to harm.

    Thou shalt not cause involuntary cost,

    …nor permit others to cause involuntary cost.

    Thou shalt not conspire,

    ….nor permit others to conspire.

    Thou shalt not conquer,

    ….nor permit others to conquer.

    Thou shalt not evade punishment of offenders,

    ….nor permit others to evade punishment of offenders.

    Thou shalt not forgive an offense until punished or restored,

    ….nor permit others to forgive an offense until punished or restored.

    Thou shalt not end a punishment once begun,

    ….nor permit others to end a punishment once begun.

    Thou shalt remember, record, and celebrate,

    ….the names and deeds of honorable men,

    ….and require others to remember, record, and celebrate,

    ….the deeds of honorable men.

    OATH

    I shalt not lie,

    ….nor permit others to lie.

    I shalt not steal,

    ….nor permit others to steal.

    I shalt not harm,

    ….nor permit others to harm.

    I shalt not cause involuntary cost,

    …nor permit others to cause involuntary cost.

    I shalt not conspire,

    ….nor permit others to conspire.

    I shalt not conquer,

    ….nor permit others to conquer.

    I shalt not evade punishment of offenders,

    ….nor permit others to evade punishment of offenders.

    I shalt not forgive an offense until punished or restored,

    ….nor permit others to forgive an offense until punished or restored.

    I shalt not end a punishment once begun,

    ….nor permit others to end a punishment once begun.

    I shall remember, record, and celebrate,

    ….the names and deeds of honorable men,

    ….and require others to remember, record, and celebrate,

    ….the deeds of honorable men.

    RITUAL

    Memorize names and deeds of the pantheon of heroes in each of the four disciplines, and celebrate them on holidays.

    IT IS THROUGH HONOR WE GAIN IMMORTALITY

    ————–

    (roughly copied from song of roland, with obedience removed)

    To at all times to speak the truth

    To guard the honour of fellow men. (again, force the truth)

    To fight for the welfare of all

    Never to refuse a challenge from an equal

    Never to turn the back upon a foe.

    To persevere to the end in any enterprise begun

    To refrain from the wanton giving of offence

    To protect the weak and defenceless

    To live to obtain honour and glory

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:42:00 UTC

  • THE CULT OF COOPERATION WITHOUT PARASITISM Now what gets lost in my political rh

    THE CULT OF COOPERATION WITHOUT PARASITISM

    Now what gets lost in my political rhetoric at times is that my driving moral bias is **the prevention of conflict without incurring sacrifice**. In other words, by accident of a puritanical family with a lot of internal fighting between my rather spoiled martial upper-class alcoholic father, and my rather disciplined, humble, temperate, and poor catholic mother.

    The pacifist solution is to tolerate substantial losses in order to avoid conflict that has higher losses. And as long as you live poorly and reproduce vastly this strategy works. Conversely, for small numbers, who breed slowly, to live well, they must not tolerate sacrifice or parasitism, and must force productivity. Otherwise they must resort to predation. So this competitive strategy can be represented as a triangular compromise between population, prosperity, and the expense of either submission or prohibition. (Yes I should graph this out. But you know I am kind of overloaded at the moment so it will have to wait. Basically, something on the order of: x=population, y=technology, 00->XY demand is tolerance for parasitism, Y(n), X(n) curve is tolerance which should form an X with tolerance. )

    But so my moral disposition, my moral INTUITION turns out to be an involuntary advocacy for conflict reduction without parasitism.

    As such I see the world as a sort of donut,with the aristocracy from all cultures in the hole, and the classes radiating outward, with further difference from the center representing the degree of normative interdependence of people within a tribal group, and the

    Aristocracy is marginally indifferent the world around, if we mean, demonstrated ability in production, distribution and trade.

    So this means that bringing aristocracy together, and capital APART to people is just a matter of reducing the cost of capital enough, and allowing elites to accomplish this on the behalf of their own people without too much interference from one another.

    It is very costly and dangerous to bring lower classes tog ether, and it is very beneficial to bring aristocracy together. The cost of integrating people who require normative similarities, where those normative similarities reflect biological differences in ability and preference is simply too high for more than fractions of the population. However, the only reason to move people from low trust to high trust is the failure of local governments to construct rule of law sufficient that the people do not require relocation (hiring nobility, or moving to nobility), just as we cannot move capital to people because their upper classes have failed.

    Democracy is of no value whatsoever, since it merely means that we create nothing but negative international incentives. This is counter to common intuition and current mythos, but it is demonstrably true, and logically very difficult to counter.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 07:03:00 UTC

  • Usufructs Under Propertarianism

    QUESTION: Curt Doolittle, how do you reconcile usufructs with Propertarianism?

    ANSWER:  Just for everyone’s benefit, lets understand what these things mean:

    DEFINITIONS 

    – Commons (common ownership) – where the three rights of ownership are held by more than one individual: 

    1 – Usus (use) The right to use or enjoy a commons, directly and without altering it. (Walking in a Park)

    2 – Fructus (the fruits of) is the right to derive profit from a commons. (Selling the blueberries you have grown in the park).

    3 – Abusus (abuse), the right to transfer, consume, or destroy. (Selling off a piece of the park, or building a home on it. So Abusus consists of two categories of rights
    ……(a) Right of transfer. (Emancipation) or ‘Mancipio’,
    ……(b) Right to consume or destroy, or ‘Abusus’.

    – Ownership: (monopoly) Possession of all three rights determines ownership.

    USUFRUCTUS
    The right to use and bear the fruits of some asset without the right to transfer, consume, or destroy it. 

    Usufruct is technically how land is treated in almost all civilizations: land is a commons distributed via some set of property rights or other (including none), and some set of limited ownership rights are transferred to individuals. 

    Under anglo saxon and current property rights I have the right also to transfer, even if I do not possess the right to destroy or consume. (ie: pollute). 

    So while Abusus means an abuse of the commons (Privatization), in the west the right of transfer is separate from the right of privatization, for example just as bitcoin is a fractional asset (divisible), in our western civilization, land is also a allocated as a fractional (divisible) asset. (A fairly uncommon thing as it turns out). 

    So in the west we would separate the following rights in any commons.
    1) Usus, 2) Fructus, 3) ‘Mancipo’, 4) Abusus

    HOW DO I RECONCILE USUFRUCTUS
    These are all just properties of contract. Propertarianism does not allow for incalculable statements of any kind since it is non-operational, undecideable, and therefore this allows for involuntary transfer – and therefore any contractual commons must possess an enumerated set of shareholders, with specifically articulated rights. 

    I can conceive no conditions under which Abusus – destruction of land (pollution) – can exist as a declared right by any shareholders.

    Basic argument is this: those who defend the land own the land, and allocate Usus, Fructus, and Mancipio to fellow shareholders, but never Abusus.

    Now I am pretty sure I know all the directions anyone could run with this but I am confident I can cover all objections.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev

  • Usufructs Under Propertarianism

    QUESTION: Curt Doolittle, how do you reconcile usufructs with Propertarianism?

    ANSWER:  Just for everyone’s benefit, lets understand what these things mean:

    DEFINITIONS 

    – Commons (common ownership) – where the three rights of ownership are held by more than one individual: 

    1 – Usus (use) The right to use or enjoy a commons, directly and without altering it. (Walking in a Park)

    2 – Fructus (the fruits of) is the right to derive profit from a commons. (Selling the blueberries you have grown in the park).

    3 – Abusus (abuse), the right to transfer, consume, or destroy. (Selling off a piece of the park, or building a home on it. So Abusus consists of two categories of rights
    ……(a) Right of transfer. (Emancipation) or ‘Mancipio’,
    ……(b) Right to consume or destroy, or ‘Abusus’.

    – Ownership: (monopoly) Possession of all three rights determines ownership.

    USUFRUCTUS
    The right to use and bear the fruits of some asset without the right to transfer, consume, or destroy it. 

    Usufruct is technically how land is treated in almost all civilizations: land is a commons distributed via some set of property rights or other (including none), and some set of limited ownership rights are transferred to individuals. 

    Under anglo saxon and current property rights I have the right also to transfer, even if I do not possess the right to destroy or consume. (ie: pollute). 

    So while Abusus means an abuse of the commons (Privatization), in the west the right of transfer is separate from the right of privatization, for example just as bitcoin is a fractional asset (divisible), in our western civilization, land is also a allocated as a fractional (divisible) asset. (A fairly uncommon thing as it turns out). 

    So in the west we would separate the following rights in any commons.
    1) Usus, 2) Fructus, 3) ‘Mancipo’, 4) Abusus

    HOW DO I RECONCILE USUFRUCTUS
    These are all just properties of contract. Propertarianism does not allow for incalculable statements of any kind since it is non-operational, undecideable, and therefore this allows for involuntary transfer – and therefore any contractual commons must possess an enumerated set of shareholders, with specifically articulated rights. 

    I can conceive no conditions under which Abusus – destruction of land (pollution) – can exist as a declared right by any shareholders.

    Basic argument is this: those who defend the land own the land, and allocate Usus, Fructus, and Mancipio to fellow shareholders, but never Abusus.

    Now I am pretty sure I know all the directions anyone could run with this but I am confident I can cover all objections.

    Curt Doolittle 
    The Propertarian Institute 
    Kiev

  • IF MORALITY IS UNIVERSAL, THEN SO IS LAW. Given that there is only one law – the

    IF MORALITY IS UNIVERSAL, THEN SO IS LAW.

    Given that there is only one law – the prevention of free riding; and one means of suppressing it – the law. And that humans demonstrate constant innovation to escape the limitations of competitors – market competition. And that humans demonstrate constant innovation in the means of escaping the limits of that law. And as such, preservation of that market, by that law, requires that we match innovation in the law, so that the difference between market innovation to escape competition, free riding to take advantage of new opportunities for free riding, and the legal means of suppressing free riding, preserve confidence in taking risks, and preserve the velocity of the market, and preserve the accumulation of wealth. Then the question remains why we would need competing legal systems any more than we would need competing systems of mathematics. If we separate judiciary from government, meaning that we separate the resolution of disputes and innovation in the law, from the production of commons via a contract, then we may need different governments for the different allocations of control over our individual property rights, in order to produce the commons that are desirable by our individual group members, but I can understand no conditions under which we require competing systems of law, other than to allow different ranges of morality in the creative application of free riding. We may require organic and distributed evolution of the law, much like we use in science today – moving from hypothesis on a law, to theory on a law, to ‘law’ proper by the accumulation of judicial consent. But if these laws diverge, then something is wrong. The reason being that all legal disputes are decidable, and if they are not then they are not matters of property open to decision making.

    As far as I know this is a box and the theory of a market for law is done.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-02 02:07:00 UTC