Definitions · Uncategorized

Definition: Natural Law

Natural Law.  The One Law.  The Law of Cooperation.

Whereas: The benefits of cooperation multiply so vastly that no individual can survive long or easily without it.

NEGATIVA: non-provocation: non imposition of costs against property in toto: that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in without imposing costs upon that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in.

POSITIVA: reward: the requirement that we limit our actions that affect the property-in-toto of others to those that cause productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, limited to productive externalities.s.
Natural Law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs that would cause retaliation and thereby increase the costs, uncertainty, risk, and decrease the incentive to cooperate, resulting in a decrease in the velocity of cooperation that creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.

The attempt to mature prehistoric european, Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical, judge discovered, common law of sovereign men, into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights.

In other words, natural law, evolved from empirical common law, as the formal category(property), logic (construction), empiricism(from observation), and science (continuous improvement) of human cooperation.

In this view, ethics, morality, economics, law, politics constitute the science of cooperation: social science. Everything else is justification, advocacy, literature, and propaganda.

The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016)
(Bacon/English-German, Locke/British-German, Jefferson/Anglo-German, Hayek/Austrian-German, Rothbard/Jewish-Russian-German, Hoppe/German, Doolittle/Anglo-American.)


More Thoughts on Operationalism

(economics, philosophy)

I’ve been working with framing the debate against naive mathematics as similar to the debate against naive empiricism, because economics makes use of both naive empiricism and naive mathematics.

For a very long time – since at least the greeks – we have advanced the fallacy that the universe is written in mathematical language. And we have advanced the fallacy that mathematics provides the gold standard by which to test our observations and theories.

But, skipping ahead a bit, mathematics consists of a set of operations with which we maintain constant relations, and where we describe aggregates OF UNDERLYING OPERATIONS (transformations), without knowing the constitution of those underlying operations.

4) Conceptually identifiable phenomenon.
3) Empirically measurable phenomenon.
2) Mathematical description of patterns of those phenomenon.
1) Operational construction of those phenomenon.
0) Information

In much of human inquiry we have been incorrectly categorizing the problem as the discovery of patterns we observe, rather than the problem of operations that constitute them.

0) Information
1) Operations
2) Mathematics
3) Computers
4) “Recipes”
5) “Language”

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev Ukraine.


Apple Will Have No Choice…


Great unbiased Venturebeat article on Apple. Thank you.

Have a few thoughts to share (and curious if you have any feedback).

As someone intimately familiar with the Post-Bill-Gates internal consequences at Microsoft, I see all the same behaviors at Apple, and I suspect we will see the same ‘lost decade’ of results. The difference is, Apple does not benefit from the network effect of entrenched products as did Microsoft, and Apple’s fall will be more rapid and their time to adapt much shorter.

Over the past six years I’ve suggested that Apple will continue to bet on the consumer and fail – because (a)the accumulated media of the past century is now widely distributed, and (b) the touch-screen revolution that propelled Apple’s iPhone revenues is widely distributed, and (c) everyone in the world is researching the verbal-AI revolution since they’re aware that’s the next interface hurdle, and (d) the Bauhaus design ethic is firmly entrenched worldwide.

And so there are no ‘failures of engineering and design’ among device manufacturers that Apple can compensate for, and use to obtain large consumer market share as both Apple and Microsoft had done during their evolutions. We tend to think of Apple and Microsoft as innovators, but they were merely consumer commoditizers of existing technologies during an era of pent up demand. This condition no longer exists in the world – just the opposite. Industrial design for consumer users has been adopted everywhere in the mainstream.

So, as far as I can see, Apple has no choice of means of maintaining share price other than pivoting to business and industry, and displacing Microsoft – who, for cultural reasons, is the software equivalent of IBM/DEC/WANG in the industrial space, and Motorola/Nokia in the mobile phone space.

Yet as (a) the merger of iOS and Mac OS groups (another mistake we saw Microsoft make in the pursuit of false operating system efficiencies) and as (b) the abandonment of the power-user market with the new ‘Mac Air’ rebranded as ‘Mac Pro’ and the termination of the mac pro line (c) the abandonment of network/backup devices (d) the continuous abandonment of the professional market (video editing), (e) the abandonment of the ‘maintainable’ mac server hardware (f) the abandonment of the mac server software community (g) the failure of Apple to produce competitive cloud services — all of which indicate Apple is either gambling on an other miracle-research-and-development effort (historically a terrible tragedy),

Now, perhaps I’ve been studying business and industry transformation for too many decades, but it would seem far more prudent to maintain a portfolio and CREATE a network effect as a resistance to unpredictable innovation by a wildcard competitor, and to continue the trend of making industrial engineering innovations usable by consumers and power users, than it would be to continue to put all one’s eggs in a consumer basket when consumers are fickle and industry allows you to create an entrenched revenue stream.

Microsoft repeatedly pursued false efficiency instead of creating separate units that pursued the interests of different users. And when they did so they still caused havoc: attempting to move users to the xbox platform instead of preserving the ‘elite’ gamer on the PC and the ‘casual’ gamer on the xbox. There are no efficiencies. There are only lost opportunities.

Microsoft also abandoned their evangelists, abandoned their dominance as an application platform, and they are currently in the process of abandoning the .net stack that they tried to use to create a walled garden.

And on a broader horizon, given the influence the ‘new age’ companies have on the stock market and as a consequence the economy (FB/email-fax, Google/YellowPages, Apple/AT&T-Communications) we are living in the most fragile economy since the end of the roaring twenties. Why? Because quite a few of us know how to displace Facebook, google, apple and Microsoft. And of those only Microsoft retains a durable network effect. And the only company currently capable of eroding the Microsoft network effect is Apple – because their products are simply better in every regard. The only think preventing Apple from displacing Microsoft’s revenues is the acquisition of and incorporation of a virtualization product and thereby achieving for Apple with Microsoft achieved because of IBM/DEC.

Just as a bit of humor: there is a correlation between the launch of a tallest building and a market crash. Meaning that any economic conditions allowing for a new tallest building are indicators of an economy that will bust.

I recognize the same effect in Apple’s spaceship office. The fact that anyone would do that, is an indicator of a bubble that will bust.

I suppose that the function of those of us who are students and teachers of business cycles can ‘help’ Apple by writing about it quite a bit. And pushing ideas into the public discourse that are culturally suppressed internally.

But I suspect that the damage that will be done to Apple by the first five years post-Steve will be so significant that (like Microsoft) it may not be possible to correct it.

Company cultures function analogously to an instruction set, and companies can only calculate what instructions are culturally available. Apple (like google and FB) have cultures (as did MSFT) that enshrine values that gave rise to them and were mythical at the time – and are now simply false.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine.…/apple-survived-a-horrible-2016-an…/


Nothing Should Be Determined Democratically (Israel)

Peace is undesirable in the choice between a homeland at the expense of conflict, and peace at the expense of a second failure to preserve a homeland. Jews must learn to rule – including themselves. Christians must return to rule. Democracy – the abandonment of rule – is a failed experiment. We pretend that democracy is a good rather than just the cheapest method of rule with the least consequences for the rulers. So we claim democracy as an ideological good when it is instead – when combined with fiat credit – a cheaper method of rule. And worse, not all civilizations, or peoples, have reached a level of development – either political, cultural or genetic – that is sufficient for cooperation on purely economic grounds and under democratic polities. Instead, it appears, that democracy and economic cooperation are luxury goods made possible by military and technological windfalls, and nothing more.

If for no other reason than self-defense, those of us with the ability to rule well – meaning with a positive evolutionary outcome for man – must rule, while those who are incapable of rule – meaning producing a negative evolutionary outcome for man – must be ruled.

There is no alternative except wishful thinking. And wishful thinking is found most frequently as the pavement on the road to hell.

Curt Doolittle
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine


The Term “Individualism” is a Slur. Sovereignty, not Individualism.

Non-Conflation is the Result of the ‘Sentiment’ of Sovereignty.

I realize this is hard to understand, but in the simplest example, most cultures conflate religion and law. Ours maintained the separation. We preserve separation and therefore competition everywhere. Because sovereignty is our founding principle – that which makes us westerners. All other virtues of western civlization derive from – are a consequence of – sovereignty. Our separation of church (weak) and state (strong) is just what we think of most frequently. Or our separation of powers. But these separations exist to preserve sovereignty. We merely justify them as good because we intuit the preservation of sovereignty as a good where most other cultures are incapable of producing institutions that can survive competition.

The term ‘individualism’ is a slur.  ANOTHER LIE.


Why A Monopoly Economic Model? Power. Because there isn’t a need for a monopoly model.

—“Curt , why won’t they let us have economic and cultural systems that are specific to the various cultures around the world? Why the obsession to force one system on differing people, many whom aren’t adept to a foreign survival strategy? Why not let many flowers bloom?”—Ankit Patel‎ 

Exactly. You know why? Where religion was the excuse for pursuing power in the past, morality the excuse for pursuing power after that, economics has been the excuse for pursuing power since marx.