(Cover)
.
.
.
The Natural Law
B. E . Curt Doolittle
.
.
.
(half-title)
.
.
.
.
The Natural Law
.
.
.
.
( quotes page )
“The Genius of Curt Doolittle”
“Doolittle has managed to combine, in an unusual way, the following intellectual traditions: 1)Nietzsche: Aristocratic Aryanism vs Abrahamism. 2) Darwin: theory of evolution, new cognitive science and group evolutionary strategy. 3) Jefferson/Adams: legal theory, statecraft, political liberty. 4) Austrian School of economics: marginalism, Menger, Hayek. 5) Epistemology and philosophy of science: his Testimonialism represents a real innovation. 6) Classicism: Homer, Aristotle, Stoicism / Epicureanism, etc. – Reconstructing civic life and the curriculum which existed in our Universities until very recently (around 1968). Brilliant thinkers specialize usually in one or two schools of thought, not six. Besides, his level of competence in these scientific fields is state of the art. Propertarianism completes science and reforms philosophy, psychology, sociology, law, politics and international relations.”
(title page)
.
.
.
The Natural Law
The Law of Nature
.
.
.
.
(copyright page)
Copyright © 2019 by _____ All rights reserved.
No part of this publication may be reproduced, distributed, or transmitted in any form or by any means, including photocopying, recording, or other electronic or mechanical methods, without the prior written permission of the publisher, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in critical reviews and certain other noncommercial uses permitted by copyright law. For permission requests, write to the publisher, addressed “Attention: Permissions Coordinator,” at the address below.
Imaginary Press
1233 Pennsylvania Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94909
www.imaginarypress.com
Ordering Information:
Quantity sales. Special discounts are available on quantity purchases by corporations, associations, and others. For details, contact the publisher at the address above.
Orders by U.S. trade bookstores and wholesalers. Please contact Big Distribution: Tel: (800) 800-8000; Fax: (800) 800-8001 or visit www.bigbooks.com.
Printed in the United States of America
Publisher’s Cataloging-in-Publication data
Burton E Curt Doolittle
An Indictment: A Prelude To Declaration of War
p. cm.
ISBN 978-0-9000000-0-0 1. The main category of the book —History —Other category. 2. Another subject category —From one perspective. 3. More categories —And their modifiers. I. Johnson, Ben. II. Title. HF0000.A0 A00 2010 299.000 00–dc22 2010999999
First Edition 14 13 12 11 10 / 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
(dedication)
Dedication
“For the ashes of our fathers, and the temples of our gods.”
“For those who would rule themselves in self-interest, rule others out of self-defense, rule our people in their defense, rule mankind its defense, and by doing so, transcend man from beasts to humans, to the gods we imagine.”
At the age of twelve, in our small idyllic victorian town, on a Sunday, sitting in a pew in our Roman Catholic church, inspired, I gave an oath to my god: that should I become wealthy, I would build him a church. That oath gave me purpose. And I have sought to fulfill that oath for the entirety of my life. But, I had no idea that while I meant wealth in the form of money and a church in the form of a building, that he meant wealth in the form of knowledge and a church in the form of a revolution, reformation, renaissance for our people, and for mankind. And once I understood, I felt the task impossible and myself inadequate – but through faith, persistence, sacrifices few can bear, and hard work, I may have at least laid a cornerstone, and perhaps a foundation.
(toc)
Table of Contents
Introduction
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
(preface)
Preface
The Cost of Heroism
“Europeans do not know how to live unless they are engaged in some great enterprise. When this is lacking, they grow petty and feeble and their souls disintegrate.”
(Ortega y Gasset)
Origins
In 1992, around the time of the Gulf War, the American Democratic Party launched its campaign to get air time for no other purpose than to repeat talking points and avoid answering questions. At the same time the conservative and libertarians were still unable to argue their positions in other than moral, historical, or religious language.
There hadn’t been a scientific and rational counter-revolution in Conservative political speech to match the pseudoscientific Marxist and pseudo-rational Postmodern left’s counter-revolution against science, nor the level of sophistication in the production of ideology. The left succeeded in postwar construction of yet another foundational mythos in a repetition of the revolt against reason and law by the foundational myths of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
The combination of demand for, and financial incentive to, expand education of the newly affluent working and lower-middle classes, and the new foundational myths that promised a more prosperous future as well as political power, and the quite deliberate purge of western aristocratic, meritocratic, empirical, rule of law tradition, from the academy, actively suppressed the western aristocratic tradition.
The preservation of the eugenics of Darwin, Spencer, and Nietzsche had failed, the preservation of eugenic meritocracy had failed, and the preservation of the relationship between economics and rule of law had failed. All failed to survive the European civil wars. In the postwar period, the conservative moralism of Kirk had failed, the classical liberal appeal to rule of law by Hayek had failed. Even the classical economists who were incognizant of the difference between their classical retention of rule of law and the left’s Keynesian abandonment of rule of law in favor of rule by economic discretion – they either underestimated or were incognizant of the fact that rule of law and classical economics continued the western eugenic tradition.
Sometime in the late seventies those of us in conservative and libertarian circles merely assumed that just as Johnson’s Great Society experiment had clearly failed, that the same collapse would occur in the rest of the world (it did), and that we merely must wait out the bankruptcy here in America, and then the left would ‘see the light’. For this reason the use of debt to produce the military leap that would break the Russian economy’s ability to compete, was preferable and repairable, while the consequences of expanding the left’s increase in consumption would leaves genetic, normative, traditional, and institutional scars on our civilization.
It may not be obvious that the years I spent working on artificial intelligence with the same degree of investment prepared me for and influenced me in this work. But the astute reader will see the evidence, and the obvious potential to apply the ideas to the field of artificial intelligence – in the development of a ‘conscience’.
In Every Age (information, Operations)
(Spirits, Forms, First Movers)
(examples of Wittgenstein and his moving pictures)
(logic and ideal and science to operationalism, transactions, economic demand, competition, and survival – this unites the olde world, reason, logic, justification and science, with the lessons of the 20th century: economics, computer science, linguistics, cognitive science)
The Cause
In every great transformational era cast off the superstitions, errors, justifications, and lies of the prior; and in doing so cause those who either benefitted from the prior era, or find opportunity in the newer, to produce waves of retaliation using new superstitions, errors, justifications and lies.
So each great era consists of a cycle in which old impedimental rents are destroyed, new transformative opportunities are created, organizations and leaders rotate, consumption and population expands, and the gradual accumulation of calcifying rents proceeds yet again.
That is, until a shock by technological innovation, natural disaster, plague, over consumption, overpopulation, over extension, trade route disruption, war via immigration, war by religious conversion, warfare of conflict or conquest, creates a demand to change and adapt the entire order.
If there is either no institutional technology available to assist in the adaptation, or there is insufficient free capital to reorganize leaders, institutions, production, population and skills to produce an alternative order, then, as a consequence, the markets we call cities, are occupied, and the populations replaced, or the system of cooperation collapses, disappears, and is hidden by the accumulation of deposits over time.
Transformational eras are made possible by … the invention of new
Meaningful, descriptive, rational, measurable, commensurable, combinatorial, or transformational technology.
Record by names and descriptions, then by stories, then by writing, …
We compare by ideal types…. Supply demand curves, and equilibria
We measure by counting, then arithmetic, then by accounting, then by geometry, then by calculus, then by statistics, then by non-Euclidean geometries of consistent but infinitely complex constant relations no longer physically possible, but only logically possible.
We reason by examples within our experience, then by analogy to myth and legend; then by analogy to religious parable, dictate, and dogma; then by justification of morals, norms and law; then by correlation with evidence and recorded measurement; and now by demonstration of existentially possible construction using recipes, formulae, algorithms, programs, models, and simulations.
We trade by luxuries, crafts, commodities, fractional interests, information, and time.
We create weights and measures …..
We render the inconstant commensurable by money and prices,…. Property…
We create various monetary instruments ….
We rule by violence, then by religion and ostracization, then by law and punishment, then by credit and consumption, and now by digital reputation and access to opportunity.
We organize by kin, then by cult, then by law, then by administrative division, then by economic model, and finally by civilization.
We practice imitation ethics, heroic ethics, virtue ethics, rule ethics, and outcome ethics.
Incremental Expansion of Productivity in the Division of Knowledge….
Incremental Expansion of that which has value
spirits, farming, metals, hydraulics, gears, steam, electricity, and now something new.
(myth, reason, theology, rationalism, empiricism, and now somethi
Incremental Suppression of Parasitism
Suppress crime by….
(undone….. solution? The ‘therefore’?)
OUR NEXT GREAT ENDEAVOUR
The Transcendence of Man
( … )
WHAT IS THE PROMISE?
The Fifth Enlightenment
The impact of Propertarianism’s Algorithmic Natural Law of Reciprocity and Testimonialism’s Warranty of Due Diligence of Truthfulness will be as great an improvement in mankind’s agency as was (1) Meritocratic Aristocracy, (2) Aristotelian Reason, (3) Enlightenment Empiricism, and the (4) scientific and industrial revolution – and the consequences for mankind profound, enriching, empowering and most of all, transcendent.
( … )
A CHALLENGE
The only test of your ideas is law
If you can’t write a body of policy changes, a project plan, contracts, shareholder agreements, a body of law, and a constitution to make a society function you’re just talking smack – because that is the hierarchy of algorithms that produce not a simulation but the operating system of the real world that we live in.
You must program a computer via positiva, because it cannot imagine, or predict, and so cannot choose without those instructions. But you must program humanity via negativa because it can imagine, predict, and choose – which is why humans can adapt and computers can’t.
And while both a computer and a human are amoral, the computer cannot choose between morality and immorality. The human can. and the purpose of our manners, ethics morals, norms, traditions, institutions and laws is to rase the cost of the immoral choices so that only moral choices remain.
But we all test that limit at every opportunity.
In anticipation of critics
It’s in the nature of those defending investments in errors, priors, wishful-thinking, frauds, deceits, and lies to seek minor imperfections in the weave of an argumentative greatcoat under the pretense that an inopportune pull will leave the wearer shivering in the winter cold.
But, in our defense, we can deflate any compliment or criticism into incentives, actions, volition, transfers, changes in capital, and method of communication and argument, and determine whether one acts and speaks truthfully and reciprocally under warranty (meaning morally), or dishonestly and fraudulently without warranty (meaning immorally).
The era of psychologism, ridicule, rallying and shaming is over.
- Faith: a Priest Commands Obedience To a fraud – to produce a supposed Good.
- Theory: a Merchant Begs permission to Exchange – to obtain a mutual Preference.
- Truth: a Sovereign Challenges you to Defeat Him – because it is the only way to know the Truth Of his abilities.
So this is my challenge: It will be very hard to undo what i have done here.
(introduction)
Introduction
—“we are living in an era when sanity is controversial and insanity is just another viewpoint—and degeneracy only another lifestyle.”–thomas sowell
What is this book about?
( … )
What’s the Objective?
( .. )
. . .
Is this philosophy, law or science?
Testimony: actions, truth, decidability vs philosophy, words (text), choice
WE are what we do. i am, as are all of us, what i do. and in the past, what i do was called a philosophy – at least when referring to aristotle.
We have no word today for what i do. neither philosophy, nor the law, nor science is sufficient. Instead, my work unifies science, law, and philosophy, combining them into what i call testimony or Testimonial truth.
I am writing to, and speaking to you in Testimony, using the vocabulary and grammar of natural law. natural law is the equivalent of the physical laws of physics, chemistry, and biology, but for the human sciences of language, psychology, sociology, ethics, economics, politics, and law.
Please don’t blame me for the obvious confusion between Physical laws of nature, and the Natural law of man. our ancestors left us with these terms. I inherited them just as you did.
Writing in Testimony Will sound much more like i’m a prosecutor than a philosopher or scientist. That’s because philosophers advise, scientists describe, and the law decides. So the law doesn’t – and i don’t, prevaricate with comforting or polite words open to interpretation. The law does, and i do, prosecute claims, and judge the evidence. And we aren’t addressing a subject for cheerful or comforting discourse.
Decidability: science, natural law, testimony
Choice: Philosophy
Advice: wisdom literature: mythology, hinduism
Advocacy: secular theology: continental philosophy,
Training (therapy): Buddhism, stoicism
Requirement: theology: abrahamic, buddhist,
Testimony, natural law, physical law, measurement, logical facility, memory
Logical facility, mathematics, physical science, natural law, economics,
Testimony, ordinary language, description, narration,
Storytelling, history, fiction, literature, myth.
Fictionalism (sophisms)
… idealism > platonism > surrealism
… magic > pseudoscience
… occult > supernatural (theological)
And last of all, Deceit
. . .
Audience
Who is the audience?
- The Curious Who would like to learn something new – even if it’s only to learn that such a thing as propertarianism exists.
- Activists Seeking political change regardless of political and moral bias.
- Revolutionaries The world over who seek a shovel-ready solution to political orders in modernity
- Politicians Looking for solutions to the transformation of the post-communist-capitalist world.
- Philosophers Who would prefer to speak in a scientific rather than literary prose – and prevent themselves from obsolescence.
- Jurists Who seek a basis for their intuitions that it is possible to create a formal and algorithmic body of law.
- Artificial intelligence Researchers and developers who desire to solve the problem of rational, ethical, and moral general artificial intelligences.
- Software developers Working in various monetary substitutes who are seeking a language that more readily explains their ambitions.
What you will like
( … )
What you will not like
( … )
When justice delivers her verdict, without exception, it provides all parties internal to the conflict with equal dissatisfaction. And i suspect that will be the reader’s experience.
Why the terms, lists, diagrams?
You will notice right away, that in testimony, we use a lot of lists of various kinds. That’s for a number of reasons: Creating measurements from words, simplifying complexity, helping you jog your memory When you need to, and helping you Scan for ideas When you need to jog your memory.
1. turning ordinary language into a system of measurement
For example, in mathematics, we take a series of words, put them in order – meaning in a position – on in a line, and call that a Number line. and when we do that, we can use the number line as a system of measurement. And it’s very hard to confuse by accident or pretend so that we deceive ourselves of others, that two positions on that line are the same.
So in testimony do the same thing. We take an idea. We collect a number of words that are synonyms and antonyms for that idea, then put them in some kind of order on a line, then define each on differently from the others, and we have created a system of measurement that’s very precise. And so it is very hard to confuse (or conflate) by accident or to confuse (or conflate) for the purpose of deception of ourselves or of others
So let’s use ‘Moral‘ because that’s a word that we all use but conflate (confuse) often.
Good, moral, ethical, right amoral, wrong, unethical, immoral, evil
Which we usually write with arrows so that we can help the reader understand the direction of the idea, and we put bars around the starting point.
Good < moral < ethical < right < |amoral| > wrong > unethical > immoral, > evil
And then define them as actions:
Good: when you do something that benefits others, at neutral or some cost to you.
Moral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously but you don’t.
Ethical: when you do something where you could cheat the other person directly but you don’t.
Right: when you do something that could affect others but you ensure it doesn’t.
Amoral: when you do something that doesn’t affect others because it can’t.
Wrong: when you do something that affects others but don’t you ensure and it does.
Unethical: when you do something where you can cheat the other person directly and you do.
Immoral: when you do something where you could cheat others indirectly and anonymously and you don’t.
Evil: when you do something that harms others, just to harm them even if it costs you.
Where the “Constant-relation” between the terms is the spectrum of means of imposing – or avoiding imposing – the consequences of your actions upon others.
So now we have a unit of measurement of the morality of human actions. So whether we want to speak truthfully, or determine whether someone else is speaking truthfully, we have a simple means of testing their speech.
When we use these terms we won’t confuse them, and everyone else writing in testimony can use them the same way. And, you might think that this would be a lot of work and be confusing, but it turns out that there aren’t very many of them, after a while, you’ll memorize all of them, and this is one of the most common series we use.
We call this technique “Disambiguation, serialization, and operationalization” because we de-conflate terms, by writing them in operational language, meaning definitions that start with ‘when you do something that causes something that you experience as.’ and then we sort them by trial and error into order, and adjust their definitions until they don’t overlap (conflate), so that they are disambiguated.
Writing in actions – operational language – causes us to write from the same point of view, so that no matter what we are discussing, no matter what subject we discuss by reducing all of our terms to actions in operational language, they will all be measurable by the same standard: actions. This technique creates “Commensurability” Regardless of the subject matter.
Not so that we must speak in that system of measurement – it would be burdensome, but so like mathematics in the determinism (constant relations) of the physical science, we would have a language of measurement for all sciences, including the human sciences.
Testimonial prose allows us to determine whether a person who is claiming something is Reciprocal (truthful and right, ethical, moral, or good) can make the claim by demonstrating sufficient knowledge to make the claim, and has made the claim.
And that is the purpose of testimony: to create a System of measurement: A value neutral Language For the discussion of reality (what we call metaphysics), physical sciences and the human sciences of psychology, sociology, economics, ethics, law politics, and group strategy.
A value-neutral language for use as a fully commensurable, system of measurement, for the non-physical sciences.
2. charts simplify complexity
(…)
3. jogging your memory
( … )
4. ease of finding by scanning
( … )
Most of the time, whenever necessary or possible we’ve included a chart and an explanation, and a selection of readings that apply it.
Definitions > charts > explanations > readings (essays)
So whatever your reading style, you should find a comfortable way of understanding the topic, and then you can return for more information later if you want to, or find a need to.
Vocabulary
All disciplines require specific terminology, and propertarianism, which is a formal construction of the natural law of reciprocity, like existing law as practiced in both common and continental varieties, must produce statements that are both decidable, and not open to manipulation or interpretation, which in turn requires a very precise vocabulary.
We use a sometimes painfully rigorous vocabulary. And to begin with, english is already notable for its preference to appropriate as many terms as possible from as many languages as possible, rather than, as under its german origins, compounding terms. To some degree, we take this property of english to its natural conclusion.
Resulting in:
|Definitions| operational > narrower > corrected > redefined > Neologisms
Operational definitions: to reduce conflation and increase deflation – to remove tendency to misinterpret the term.
Narrower definitions: once we organize related terms in a series, we will narrow the definition of those terms.
Corrected definitions: many terms – particularly those with platonic or ideal (rather than operational or empirical) definitions must be corrected. An extreme example being that a “number” consists of a positional name, and that is all.
Redefinition: (reframing) in some cases terms are defined a framing that is either false, pseudoscientific, archaic, or deceptive. So i’ve redefined them with operational framing. For example the choice of capitalism versus socialism is a choice between rule of law independent of discretion, and arbitrary rule consisting of discretion. Framing the choice as economic ideals obscures the operational differences.
New terms (neologisms) : some new terms where older terms would be conflationary or confusing.
Many “-isms”: Definition: -ism: “a distinctive practice, system, or philosophy (method of decision making), that provides categories, values, epistemological methods, and means of decidability in a domain.” to understand the meaning of “-isms”: requires one know the categories, values, method of epistemology, and means of decidability that they refer to. so -ism’s are identical to any other taxonomic categorization in any other specific domain, such as that of family, kingdom, genus, and species. In many cases we will define the term in the glossary. If not then wikipedia often provides a simple version and the stanford encyclopedia provides a thorough if often more confusing version.
Style guide
Bold To allow for those of us who read quickly to scan by Keywords.
Capitals For names of ideas, like “rationalism”, “sovereignty”, “propertarianism”.
Parentheticals To bridge operational(technical) and meaningful(familiar) terms, or to limit interpretation.
Series and lists : a sequence of definitions representing a spectrum of terms. The use of series deflates, increases precision, and defeats conflation. First exposure to the methodology’s use and repetition of series tends to both be the most obvious and most helpful of the techniques.
Constructions : tracing the path of the development of ideas from primitive to current constructions.
Algorithms : general processes for the construction of deflations.
Wordy prose.
- Analytic philosophy is, of necessity, wordy.
- Operational language is, of necessity, wordy.
- Programming algorithms is, of necessity, wordy.
- Law, whether contractual, legislative, or constitutional, is wordy.
- Algorithmic natural law is of necessity, wordy.
Technical languages evolve to speak precisely. Precise language contains technical terms and is wordy. Why, if all the other sciences require technical language, would we think that speaking technically in the science of cooperation is not going to be wordy? Well, it’s going to be wordy.
The methodology
“i categorize p as describing the intellectual foundations of western civlization that the populists are currently demanding, but don’t know how to express in rational and scientific terms.”
What we call or “the propertarian project”, “Propertarianism” (a system of measurement), “sovereigntarianism” (the first cause) or ‘natural law of reciprocity”(the method), or “the natural law of the european peoples”, or any other of the names we use within it, is as large a reformation as were the aristotelian (reason), augustinian(compromise); british empirical (first scientific); and the darwinian era’s (second scientific) revolutions – and we should consider propertarianism’s position in intellectual history as the completion of the darwinian scientific revolution of the 19th and 20th centuries, and the completion of the aristotelian research program, fully disambiguating fictions (visions), theology (wishes); philosophy(choice), law (cooperation) and science(decidability), and completing the scientific method.
This completed scientific method also allows us to differentiate between reciprocal and truthful and irreciprocal and un-truthful speech. It’s a large project that reforms and modernizes every discipline.
But, you don’t need to understand the entirety of this project to understand this Constitution. You need only understand that there is far more behind its construction that might be obvious, and whenever you find something counter-intuitive, it’s because of that underlying reformation.
