Curt Doolittle

Theme: Responsibility

  • Killing Terrorist’s Families

    (h/t Eli Harman)

    Note: it is against the geneva convention to kill a someone engaged in war on the behalf of a state. To say that we will not kill the family of a terrorist is to say that we are in fact at war with them. But the purpose of the geneva convention is to allow the states to engage in warfare using conscripts without those conscripts turning against their own in order to protect their families. This misapplication of the convention is intended to empower the states to fight war with conscripts, not create safe havens for terrorists. But that is what it does. So again this shows the necessity for strict construction in law and contract. Without this provision this law can be misapplied. In other words, the state can lie to us yet again.

    “Well, it was the norm throughout all history, and the fact that we don’t retaliate against all family members is a modern invention of individualism. “The basic principle is this: Police your own. If you do not police your own, you will pay for it. Do not ask the rest of us to police yours. “Secondly, family members (especially in islam) have perverse incentive to encourage this behavior. “Third, when someone is acting in a military capacity on behalf of a group then the group benefits from the action in that capacity. Ergo we must provide disincentives to benefit from encouragement of immorality. “So, my view is of course, that we cannot use reciprocity (individualism) unless we receive reciprocity (individualism). As such we are obligated to engage in the prosecution of family members.” – Curt Doolittle

  • I would rather invest in a moral man regardless of his abilities than invest in

    I would rather invest in a moral man regardless of his abilities than invest in intelligent men regardless of his morality.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-04 16:24:00 UTC

  • The only certain way to do good, is to do no harm

    The only certain way to do good, is to do no harm.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-04 08:23:00 UTC

  • PROPERTY-IN-TOTO (worth repeating) in-toto: all. “in totality”. (latin). I use p

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/property-rights-and-obligations/DEFINITION: PROPERTY-IN-TOTO

    (worth repeating)

    in-toto: all. “in totality”. (latin).

    I use property-in/en-toto as a synonym for Demonstrated Property.

    Demonstrated Property being that which people act to secure, defend, retaliate against the imposition of costs upon.

    Humans act to defend that which they bear costs to obtain.

    1) Property-in/en-toto: all that humans act to defend.

    2) Property (Norm): that which human groups evolve to insure one another against the impositions of costs upon.

    3) Property Rights: that which we develop institutions to insure one another against the imposition of costs upon. Restitution in error or accident against private property. Restitution or punishment for intentional imposition of costs against private property. Punishment or fines for imposition of costs against common property. The most common of which is the export of risk upon others (drunk driving).

    So property-in-toto refers to the scientific (empirical) definition of property as determined by the evidence of human behavior.

    Why is this necessary? Well, the problem is that the rothbardians (Libertarians) have been espousing a definition of property called ‘intersubjectively-verifiable-property” meaning “physical things”. In other words, that the basis for law, the basis for a social order, “SHOULD BE” limited to physical things.

    I’ve written quite a bit about intersubjectively verifiable property producing low trust societies with high demand for the authoritarian state. Whereas high trust societies do not generate demand for the authoritarian state – but they tolerate if not advocate mutual insurance (redistribution).

    High trust societies do not rely upon a test of intersubjective verifiability, but upon RETALIATION. In other words, law evolved to ‘keep the peace” because keeping the peace (honestly) kept taxes flowing from the greater economic velocity. In other words, the nobility obtained taxes in exchange for creating order. (Which they then turned into rent seeking). But the side effect is that law that prohibits that which causes retaliation leaves voluntary cooperation as the only possible method of survival. Where voluntary cooperation means ‘production and trade’.

    Note: in legal terminology it would be ‘in-toto”. When I started using the term i used the french “en” instead of english “in”. to cue the reader that it’s a new term. That was probably a mistake, since it’s descriptive as it is.

    WHAT DO PEOPLE DEMONSTRATE AS THEIR PROPERTY:

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/27/property-rights-and-obligations/

    HOW DO WE INCREMENTALLY SUPPRESS IMPOSITION OF COSTS UPON OTHERS?

    https://www.facebook.com/TRSCDIncremental/posts/852912708120103

    Source date (UTC): 2016-03-02 02:55:00 UTC

  • THE IMMORAL PEOPLE SHOULD FEAR US Machiavelli didn’t get it quite right. If one

    THE IMMORAL PEOPLE SHOULD FEAR US

    Machiavelli didn’t get it quite right.

    If one is to rule, is it better to be loved or feared? Well, it is cheaper to be loved, and safer to be feared. And one not need embrace a false dichotomy. one can also rule if one is respected. Meaning that the ruler metes out justice scientifically(truthfully, and morally) and therefore is loved by the just and feared by the unjust.

    The immoral should fear us.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-28 04:54:00 UTC

  • (from elsewhere) How do you distinguish between those that should be banned and

    (from elsewhere)

    How do you distinguish between those that should be banned and those that should not? I assume murder, harm, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by suggestion, free riding, privatization of commons, socialization of losses, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, conquest, and genocide are out of the question. But you are undoubtably asking us about how we damage INFORMATION and BEHAVIOR.

    Public Sphere = in commons = visible

    Private Sphere = @home = invisible

    Personal Capital (body)

    Private Capital (Several Property – ‘things’)

    Private Reputation Capital (options on cooperation)

    Kin Capital (mates, offspring, relations)

    Kith Capital (friends, associates, partners in productivity)

    Physical Common Capital (territory, parks, roads, bridges, libraries…)

    Common Value of Private Capital (industry, business, crafts)

    Territorial and Resource Capital (borders, land, air, water, minerals)

    Monumental Capital (monuments, arts, letters, artifacts)

    Knowledge Capital (information as to what, how and why)

    Normative Common Capital (behaviors, manners, ethics, morals)

    Institutional Capital (laws, courts, governments, banks, money, processes)

    Human Capital (age ranges, education, and skills)

    Genetic Capital (domestication: limited sexual maturity, lower aggression, lower impulsivity, higher IQ, healthier, taller, fairer, stronger, faster.)

    I tend to talk in terms of existential capital. Stuff that exists. Naming specific things.

    All of these things can be measured one way or another.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-22 14:03:00 UTC

  • (diary rant) Got a hate mail today from a guy who: – Scammed me out of hundreds

    (diary rant)

    Got a hate mail today from a guy who:

    – Scammed me out of hundreds of thousands of dollars.

    – Lost my company more than two million dollars.

    – Cheated on his wife with dozens of women.

    – To top it off, he seduced the wife of one of his top employees.

    – Gave her an incurable STD, which she passed on to her husband.

    – Is a fucking chronic liar on an astronomical scale.

    – Telling me that I am a bad person for ‘betraying’ my wife and business partners.

    – Asking me how I sleep at night.

    Well, you know, it was surreal. Getting out of that environment, away from those … partners, away from my ex, was my goal, my doctor’s advice, and I did it. And to do it I pulled off the greatest deal of my career. And saved them.

    And what did they do?

    I thought I was dead when I came here. I think I”m in good shape largely because I just got away from those …. people.

    Do I have regrets? Absolutely. Had I not been so ill I probably could have kept my marriage. And I definitely have regrets over two or three of the many acquisitions I did in my life that did not work out as I’d hoped – I wish I could undo them. And I regret disappointing ‘ the little people ‘, but never the strong.

    No. Do I sleep? Um…. my business and my writing keep me awake. The noise on the street keeps me awake. Caffeine sometimes keeps me awake. Celebrating keeps me up late. Do I miss Seattle? Well, now and then I really do. Do I miss that life? Not ever. Never never never. I freaking cringe when I think about it.

    I love my life now. I wish I had done all this when I was 25.

    BEST DECISION EVER.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-18 04:20:00 UTC

  • The only reason NOT to prefer the state is if the law provides retaliation and r

    The only reason NOT to prefer the state is if the law provides retaliation and restitution for all conflicts that create transaction costs.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-16 11:21:00 UTC

  • Yes. hence, blackmail, which we retaliate for, is aggression. Blackmail is the l

    Yes. hence, blackmail, which we retaliate for, is aggression. Blackmail is the litmus test.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-15 17:41:41 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699287479812300801

    Reply addressees: @Eupraxsophite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699272751769632769

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Tyrord

    @curtdoolittle All forms of transfer not included in your definition is considered as aggression under property-en-toto?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699272751769632769

  • I am sorry. I missed this. Property-en-toto uses a broader definition of propert

    I am sorry. I missed this. Property-en-toto uses a broader definition of property (demonstrated), to test for aggression.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-15 16:13:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699265242912722944

    Reply addressees: @Eupraxsophite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/697394938569314306

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Tyrord

    @curtdoolittle How does property-en-toto prohibit fraud, conspiration, involontary transaction or extortion?

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/697394938569314306