Doolittle’s Reciprocism

Curt Doolittle:
False promise. Never will debunk anything in P. Not going to happen - ever. What you can do is say some given P-order is more or less preferable for some set of reasons. Or you can say it is or isn't possible to implement. Or it's insufficient and people need a via positive theology or philosophy. But there is zero chance anyone is going to falsify Propertarianism - or any part of it. And very very smart people have tried.

And note that Bill

1. argues a straw man ... that we're measuring trust, rather than the imposition of costs on demonstrated interests.
2. never answers the questions I propose for clarification.
3. is copying the 'leftist' game of 'term appropriation': There only one libertarianism (Rothbard) and one Propertarianism (mine), but both systems were criticized as 'propertarian' which was an insult, and why I chose it. Evidence in image attached. I registered the domain names and the trademark. Why? It wasn't in use anywhere. Only the 'insult' propertarian. So no. I'm not hijacking it. I coined, registered and trademarked it, and Propertariaism is and has been the name of the work I've produced.

4. Hogeye Bill: propertarianism [libertarian] - support for sticky (neo-Lockean private) property. That is, property defined as the disposition and use of a scarce rivalrous resource.

   1. I know the canon as well as anyone and that is not what anyone I know of has said. Hoppe has called property a scarce and rivalrous resource, not Locke, and;
   2. Locke has stated only that when one combined his labor with something it became his property. This is something I call 'demonstrated interest' but I include not doing something (bearing a cost of forgone opportunity) as well as doing something (bearing a cost).

5. Hogeye Bill: Libertarian property is very narrow in scope.

This is correct. Rothbardian libertarian property is defined as "intersubjectively verifiable property". The purpose of this limitation is to prohibit common property like Marx and the communists prohibited private property. In other words, Rothbard is trying the case as moral, Jewish "Ghetto Ethics" so that he can legitimize the Jewish tradition of free riding on the institutions and commons of host people, and not integrate and pay the costs of norms traditions, institutions, or commons where all agrarian peoples MUST produce commons and all people with fixed capital must also produce commons. This is why Rothbard was a middle class Marxist of private property, like Marx was an underclass Marxist of common property, and the neocons were upperclass Marxists of political and institutional property.

6. Hogeye Bill: We can reasonably call this a collectivist notion.

   First you're trying to taint by association. Sophomoric but then, libertarianism is sophomoric. Second, so is all shareholder property a commons. It's just a numerated commons (n, number per person) and other commons are un-enumerated (1 interest per person).

   So when you say collectivist you're trying to construct a lie that such goods are open for consumption or irreciprocity, when shareholder property (commons) is PROHIBITED from consumption. So your argument would result in us not being able to pool our interests in anything at all, such as PROPERTY RIGHTS.

   The obvious contradiction here falsifies your criticism, and it always strikes me that the Jewish libertarians try to use pilpul to create a theological, moral, and physical necessity. Property Rights can only be constructed as a normative or institutional commons. So can defense. And so can many things that may be produced by forgone opportunity - NOT doing something. All norms and traditions that are not irreciprocal therefore are common property if property rights are.

   (That's pretty much the end of anything you can say right there, but since an idiot like you shows up about once or twice a year, it's good to be thorough and at least save my self the effort for another year.)

7. Hogeye Bill: The primary social value for libertarians is non-aggression; the primary social value for reciprocists is maximizing social trust.

   I still can't tell if you're stupid, or lazy, or dishonest.

   I would never use a term 'social value' because it's a meaningless justificationary via-positiva, and Propertariaism is a via-negativa system of thought - we leave goods up to others. That said, in Propertarianism's, Propertarian Ethics, we maximize the suppression of the imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Hence the origin of the 'incremental suppression' meme.

   We also start from a different position: I and mine (the strong) want to know why not to kill, enslave, enserf, deprive, tax farm you and yours (the weak). The only reason to do so is if we practice perfect reciprocity. This is called the "Genghis Khan Test". Because that is why he let the people of Peking live. This avoids the Rothbardian fallacies. So this helps explain why Jews have been ... punished ... over a hundred times. Because Jewish ethics are parasitic, and rothbard's ethics are parasitic - it's nothing other than free riding.

   We also start from a different (truthful) position: that Crusoe's island is a metaphor for the Ghetto, with the seas providing the walls. Whereas, all people evolved in groups and property evolved as the division of labor evolved, and produced advances in common property (defense, storage, labor) in concert with the incremental development of private property in the form of tools, then animals, then residences and finally land. So again, rothbard created another wonderful little Jewish fallacy.

   We also pass the blackmail test. People will retaliate against you (commit murder) for blackmailing them. Yet this is a voluntary exchange. Same for specializing in prostitution, selling alcohol and drugs on credit, selling gambling money on credit, setting usurious prices for credit to bait people into hazard so their property can be seized.

   Rothbardian ethics - at least on the surface - appear fine to well intentioned western fools. But their purpose is to obscure the means of profiting from ghetto ethics, by free riding on the commons of others, profiting from baiting people into hazard, and using those profits to extract rents from them - usually via the state. "Liber-tards are Useful Idiots in the Middle Class, like Communists were for the Underclasses". You fell for it.

8. Hogeye Bill: This is not to say that reciprocists do not value non-aggression, or that libertarians do not value social trust.

   I think I've bludgeoned your straw man to death by now, but no, we don't value trust. We value the suppression of the imposition of costs against the demonstrated interest of our people, especially those of immigration(undesirables), conversion (islam), corruption(low trust people), baiting into hazard (marxism, postmodernism, libertarianism, feminism, denialism) all of which were designed for the single purpose of undermining class cooperation in the production of both private and common between the classes of vastly different genetics, abilities, families, resources, and knowledge.

9. Hogeye Bill: It is clear that Doolittle has a very authoritarian State in mind

   It's clear that I have, and mankind has, because this is a purely empirical analysis of how people behave and prefer others behave toward them: that this proposes RULE OF LAW, not authoritarianism., And that under that rule of law, we maximize the ability of people like you rothbard others to impose costs on others demonstrated interests whenever those interests are false and or irreciprocal.

   This is why Propertarianism is EMPIRICAL and OPERATIONAL (scientific and Existentially possible), Hoppe's Anarcho Capitalism is argued as KANTIAN RATIONALISM (sophism), and Rothbard's Libertarianism is JewISH PILPUL (Sophism). And if you understood my work you'd know that the grammar (logic, vocabulary, and internally consistent paradigm of continuous recursive disambiguation) that any person argues with belies his attempt at deception at worst, and at best (hoppe and rothbard's case) they are merely following their traditional means of argument that evolved for different kinds of lying (kantian rationalism, Jewish pilpul and critique.)

10. This one kills me as the dumbest thing so far on:

    Hogeye Bill: Reciprocism gives us a very subjective collectivist notion of property as whatever people are willing to defend.

    Um. It just says that in matters of dispute courts worldwide and across all civilizations across all time resolve matters of conflict by tests of demonstrated interest given the current, necessary, allocation of discretion over the use of property in the given time, place, and economy. (ie: cows are sacred, hands must be washed). So yes it is what people demonstrate that they will retaliate (use violence or worse) against you for.

    Now, wtf is 'intersubjectively verifiable property" if not an arbitrary definition of property selected soley for the purpose of denying third party intermediaries, and denying the production of commons, and licensing blackmail, selling harms, selling fraud absent warranty, false promise baiting into hazard, free riding upon others commons parsitically extracting from them ... and the whole Jewish christian, muslim and whole marxist, cultural marxist, postmodern, libertarian, neocon, feminist, denialist movement to destroy the market for cooperation between the classes?

11. Hogeye Bill: The political program of the Constitution of Nationalist Reciprocism is to put all government decision-making power into the hands of the Supreme Court. That’s it! Give all power to the supreme court and let them decide what truth is.

    No, it's to use the court system to deny any and all the ability to impose costs on the demonstrated interests others - therefore as a result to create markets for the production of association, cooperation, reproduction, production, commons, polities, and war.

12. You know, you have no way out other than to say you want the ability to parasitically extract from others., That's the only thing you can argue for. ... Throughout history, every time we have incrementally suppressed some form of theft, like now, those who are practicing thieves resist. ... And we do it anyway and they invent new ways of thieving. But like any technology thieving improves and the law improves, and the beauty of the common law, is that the minute you are convicted of a new form of theft it is now law, that immediately prohibits that form of thieving - all without government or state intervention.

SUMMARY

1. You're trying to steal a name I deliberately chose for my work and my movement, and you (lied?) that this wasn't my first use (homesteading).
2. You created a straw man that our interest is a via positive good, rather than a via negative good: suppression of imposition of costs upon our demonstrated interests. I think this is dead now.
3. You engaged in the rather hard to believe contradiction that people do not produce, need, want, and violently defend demonstrated intersets in commons - especially the commons of several (private), kin, material, shareholder, commons, institutional, capital monumental, and territorial property.
4. You misrepresented Locke and Hoppe.
5. You engaged in sophistry of categorization by trying to taint common interest prohibiting consumption with collectivism and equidistribution.
6. You correctly identified that libertarian and ancap intersubjectively verifiable property is a limit - but didn't didn't state it was arbitrary, nor apparently did you know that the reason for this is so that rothbard's Jewish ghetto ethics could be equated to traditional european ethics of rule of law of reciprocity by the same sophomoric means you used to attempt to conflate commons with collectivism.
7. You are stuck with justifying then why you should have the ability to engage in, or why you can even claim it's moral, that you should be able to engage in blackmail, unwarrantied trade, false promise, free riding, and a thousand other means of imposing upon the demonstrated interests others, and why they shouldn't - as they always do -run you out of town for the parasitic vagrant that you are clearly attempting to justify.

Rights don't exist. Rights are made. They are made by the production of commons. Period.

Hopefully you have wasted enough of my time. But malinvestment in Rothbardianism like any other false promise of free riding that the Jews have come up with whether theological, sophistry, or pseudoscience, 'stick' because they cause an addiction response.

Sometimes I can cure the addict with truth.

Sometimes I can't.

Curt Doolittle:

Hogeye Bill: I’ll bet I used it before you ever did. It is amusing that you think registering the term with the evil State gives you ownership.

Well if you'll bet, then how much, and what evidence can you present to back your case?

Hogeye Bill: 2. You would suppress the imposition of costs by inventing counterfeit property, such as a property in things like social trust, average IQ, and feelings of safety.

1. Demonstrated interest is existential: "demonstrated" - a truth. It's not a choice, opinion, or preference. Any OTHER definition is a choice, preference or opinion. In other words any other choice is arbitrary.
2. You have to arbitrarily choose something other than demonstrated interest. (This is how Abrahamic Pilpul is used to create an internally consistent set of justificationary lies - and of course you fell for it.)
3. Humans can't know scarcity, only demonstrated interest. Look up the origin of the concept of scarcity.
4. Humans only know objective demonstration of interest and subjective value. Humans could only have evolved identification of value, demonstrated interest, and subjective value. We can't know scarcity only ignorance.
5. Any attempt to refute my position is an attempt to refute subjective value, and you would have a very hard time doing that. ;)
6. Humans can't avoid conflict by simply being ignorant of the resources necessary to demonstrate an interest something, we can only avoid conflict by knoweldge that others have used resources to demonstrate an interest, and continue to demonstrate that interest.
7. What you are missing is (a) scarcity of a good is a circular reasoning. (b) that demonstrated interest is the scarcity, (b) that cooperation is the ultimate scarcity, (c) that reciprocity (non imposition against demonstrated interest) is the only means of preserving that cooperation. (d) that those who impose costs upon demonstrated interests are the only source of conflict over the POTENTIAL to obtain returns on one's demonstrated interests.
8. Your opinion on what imposition of costs upon their demonstrated interests does not matter to others or the headman, counsel, court that must resolve conflicts when demonstrated interest is always and everywhere the means of decidability. In other words, you can try to advocate for leaving open the possibility of parasitism upon and harm against others, but it doesn't mean anything to others, it's just a lie you and yours tell yourselves to try to justify parasitism upon others and harm against others intersets. Morality is what other people won't harm or kill you for, and the only reason not to harm or kill you is the value of your cooperation versus non-cooperation, uncooperative-competition, free riding, parasitism, predation upon anything that the use whatsoever to create and preserve their returns on cooperation. In other words, it doesn't matter what you think - it matters what others do and you can negotiate for survival with them. (This is why I use science not justificationary pilpul like Jewish rothbard and Jewish-trained Hoppe.

   Hoppe is trying to restore free cities but to do so by free riding on on other's states. Rothbard is trying to restore Jewish separatism by free riding on the same states. They're both trying to justify free riding. There is only one source of determining your rights: the use of organized violence at personal risk to deny others the alternative. The problem is that the only way to hold territory and population is with economic production hence the universal creation of increasingly suppressive laws against parasitism in every empire so that economic velocity is highest, and returns highest, and therefore military capacity highest. )

9. I do science. Y'all do pilpul (sophistry). Jewish sophistry (pilpul and critique, GSRRM, false promise, baiting into hazard) is the most sophisticated form of deception yet invented by man, just as science is the most sophisticated form of truthful testimony invented by man. There are many means of lying by sophistry, including numerology, astrology, pseudoscience, theology, but the means of lying without appeal to anything external to language is Sophism. The reason it's effective - weaving internal consistentcy out of self referentiality - is because it does not, like science, appeal to reality for closure (decidability). Instead the technique seeks to overwhelm (overload) reason (modeling) causing an appeal to moral intuition. Once you understand it's just a technique of deception that like any other techique that can be mastered, it's relatively easy to identify. The problem is untangling the self-referentiality rather than modeling the consequences in reality - which is what it seeks to undermine.

Anyway. I don't err. We all make mistakes. I very rarely err. And since this is my primary line of research I certainly don't err in this case. I can't. The science says so.