RECIPROCITY

The First Question of Ethics Is The Rationality of Cooperation

The first question of ethics is “Why do I not kill you and take your stuff”. The ritual of setting aside this question in order to enter into debate has been lost through the ages. And common interest instead, conveniently assumed as the starting point – rather than the possibility of choice between cooperation, parasitism, and predation. If we assume we start with the given of cooperation then this is a fallacy. Cooperation itself must be valued higher than non-cooperation. And non-cooperation valued higher than predation. Instead, why do I not kill you? What are the minimum criterion for cooperation under which not-killing you is advantageous? Certainly it is not rational to tolerate violence or theft. Certainly not deceit. Certainly not the imposition of costs. Certainly not danger to my kith and kin. Certainly not at an expense to my kith and kin (( Literally, albeit archaically, friends (“kith”) and family (“kin”). )). The strong preserve their choices, the middle deny them, and the bottom shame against both – and seek formal institutions of shaming to assist them: public intellectuals and priests.”

The One Law of Reciprocity. (Natural Law)

Thou shalt not, by display, word, deed, absence of display, word, or deed, impose or allow the imposition of, costs upon the demonstrated interests of others (property-in-toto), either directly or indirectly(by externality), where those interests were obtained by settlement (conversion, or first use) or productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange without such imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others. Therefore thou shalt limit thy displays, words and deeds, and the words and deeds of others, to the productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange of interests (property in toto), free of imposition of costs upon the demonstrated interests of others either directly or indirectly.

What is Natural Law?

A fully decidable (universal) Law of Ethics.

What do you mean by ethics?

The law of cooperation and conflict resolution.

What is this law of cooperation and conflict resolution?

Reciprocity.

WHAT IS RECIPROCITY?

In the Negative (Silver Rule, or via-negativa): The requirement to avoid the imposition of costs on that which others have born costs to obtain an interest in, without imposing costs upon that which others have likewise born costs to obtain an interest in.

In the Positive(Golden Rule, or via-positiva): the requirement that we limit our actions to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfers, free of the imposition of costs by externality, upon that which others have obtained by the same means.

As determined by the either any change, or the total change in the inventory that all parties both internal and external to the action have born costs to obtain an interest without imposition of costs upon others directly or indirectly by externality.

—“All of ethics can be reduced to [is a subset/special application of] the degree of reciprocity & the accounting thereof.”—

WHY DOES RECIPROCITY SERVE AS NATURAL LAW?

Because it is apparently impossible to contradict reciprocity in cooperation (ethics), and as such it provides perfect decidability in all contexts of cooperation at all scales in all times, and under all conditions.

Fully understanding this law may also require:

1) The knowledge that when we come together in proximity, we decrease opportunity costs, and therefore create opportunities that can be seized, and that opportunities must be homesteaded (settled/converted/first use), and put into production, in order to demonstrate an interest.

2) The definition of the three synonyms: demonstrated interest, demonstrated property, or property-in-toto, as that which people empirically retaliate for impositions against and have demonstrated an interest.

3) The use of the common law (of torts) as the means by which we incrementally and immediately suppress new innovations in parasitism that violate the Natural Law of Reciprocity.

4) The use of Testimonialism (warranty of due diligence against ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, Fictionalism, and deceit) as an involuntary warranty on public speech in matters of the commons, just as we currently force involuntary warranty of due diligence on products, services, and our words regarding products and services.

If you understand the one law, and these criteria, nearly all questions of conflict, ethics, morality, politics, and group competition are decidable. (really).

This solves the libertarian fallacy of non-aggression by specifically stating the scope of property that we must refrain from imposing costs upon; the cause of that scope (retaliation), the empirical means of determining that scope(demonstrate action), and the means by which violations of that law are discovered, recorded, and evolve.

Furthermore:

If we define Moral Intuitions as the reactions we feel in response to our thoughts and actions and those of others.

If we define Normative Morality as the reactions we feel given for methods of decidability given some set of assumptions.

If we define philosophy (positive and literary) as the search for methods of decidability within a domain of preference, and

If we define truth (negative and descriptive) as the search for methods of decidability across all domains regardless of preference.

Then:

We find that personal moral intuition is the product of our genes, and our experiential development. And it varies greatly from individual to individual.

We find that existing normative morality is the product of evolutionary accident and we learn it through experience and observation – although it does vary a little from individual to individual within groups, and varies widely between groups.

We find that positive or literary philosophy(fiction or philosophy) informs, suggests opportunities, and justifies preferences for the purpose of forming cooperation and alliances between individuals and groups.

We find that negative or juridical philosophy(truth or law) decides, states limits, and discounts preferences, for the purpose of resolving conflicts between individuals and groups.

We find that juridical philosophy attempts to explain the common law, without necessarily succeeding at doing so. But that the transformation of juridical philosophy to juridical science is eminently possible – we just may not like what we learn, any more than we learned in each previous reformation of our thinking.

Natural Law is a negative, descriptive, juridical science, not a fictional literature. It is not a rational philosophy limited to internal correspondence. Its not a moral norm. Nor is it necessarily a moral intuition that all would agree to.

It is the record of the arguments by which we decide conflicts over investments we have made, and protect. And from these records we can identify a very simple single law – non imposition of costs upon anything whatsoever that others have invested in producing whether informational, behavioral, material, or institutional.

And from those observations we may discover general rules. Just as in any other science.

And there is only one of them: reciprocity.

INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION BY NATURAL COMMON LAW

Organic common law as a means of incrementally suppressing free riding

1) Humans acquire at cost and defend what they have acquired at cost.

2) Cooperation is disproportionately more productive than predation.

3) Cooperation is only preferable to predation in the total absence of parasitism. Or, what we call free-riding.

4) Because of the disproportionate value of cooperation, Humans retaliate against free riding even if at high cost ( altruistic punishment). They protect the institution of cooperation by severe policing of violators (cheaters).

5) Rules against free riding, either normative or codified in law, prohibit parasitism (free riding).

6) Prohibitions that are habituated in norms or codified in law provide a means of decision making in matters of conflict.

7) Prohibitions against parasitism can be positively expressed as contractual “rights“.

8) Community members (shareholders in the local market) insure one another by suppressing retaliation against settlements of grievances according to norms and laws.

9) The common, organic law allows for the least time lapse between an innovation in the means of parasitism and the construction of a prohibition against this new means of parasitism expressed as new law. As such all laws are discovered. (very important)

10) High trust societies use common law to incrementally suppress all available means of free riding, leaving productive participation in the market as the only viable means of survival.

11) As a consequence, the reproduction of the lower classes is suppressed and the distribution of talents increases along with the innovations in technology. (market eugenics). Thus obviating the need for either tyranny or redistribution.

The chart below shows the incremental suppression of parasitism stating from the suppression of violence through fraud, through conspiracy, through immigration, through conquest.

Only the West succeeded in developing deflationary truth (Reporting).

And without it we cannot have the jury. And without the jury no judge or common law. Truth matters above all else. Pseudoscience is just Babylonian monotheistic mysticism in new clothes. This emperor is naked also. Truth is enough to rescue the west.

THE TRANSACTION COST EXPLANATION OF GOVERNMENT

History says only that the development of a state – a monopoly bureaucracy – transfers high local transaction costs without central rents, to state rents and low transaction cost. Libertarians nearly universally ignore the evidence of universal transaction costs and free riding at the local level.

And they further ignore the demonstrated necessity using organized violence by a monopoly organization to suppress those transaction costs and free ridings (“local rents”), and to convert them into central rents in order to pay for such suppression.

The counter-argument is that states are in fact a neutral cost, and that we don’t spend enough on them in the suppression of transaction costs, because states provide multiples of return on that suppression. This is also demonstrable.

The question isn’t how we can do without the state (a corporation articulated as a monopoly definition of property rights ), but now that we have suppressed local transaction costs, and replaced them with centralized rents in order to produce the commons we call property rights – how do we suppress centralized rents while maintaining the suppression of transaction costs, and the ability to construct commons that such suppression of transaction costs and rents allows us to construct?

To argue that a monopoly definition of property rights is somehow “bad”, is irrational since property, obtained by homesteading and by voluntarily exchange, under the requirements for productivity, warranty and symmetry, is as far as I know, as logically consistent and exception-less as are mathematical operations on natural numbers. So the imposition of property rights cannot be illogical, immoral, unethical no matter how they are imposed since they define that which is logical, ethical and moral.

There is nothing wrong whatsoever with violence – in fact, it is violence with which we pay for property rights and liberty – it is our first, most important resource in the construction of liberty. Instead, the question is purely institutional: having used violence to centralize transaction costs into rents, how do we now use violence to eliminate rents from the central organization?

This is pretty easy: Universal standing, Universal Property rights, and Organically constructed, Common Law, predicated upon the one law of property rights as positive articulation of the prohibition on and the suppression of involuntary transfers: the demand for fully informed, productive, warrantied, voluntary exchanges free of externality. Because it is only under fully informed, productive, voluntary transfer, warrantied and free of externality that cooperation is rational, rather than parasitic. And only under rational cooperation is forgoing one’s opportunity to use violence equally rational.

The question becomes then, who prohibits the formation of authority and this falls to the citizenry: the militia – those who possess violence.

As far as I know this is the correct analysis of political evolution, and the correct theory for future political action.

SUPPRESSION OF LOCAL, THEN CENTRAL RENTS

The state is the result of organized suppression of private impositions while preserving political rents to pay for that suppression.

But the problem we face if we wish to reduce or eliminate the interference and rent seeking of the state, is to eliminate by way of the common law, using positive assertion of property rights, all actions that produce rents, whether in public or private life.

First we centralize rents to suppress local rents and increase local productivity. Next we eliminate rents in order to suppress political parasitism endemic to all monopoly and all monopoly bureaucracy.

FULL SPECTRUM OF DEMOGRAPHIC PACIFICATION:

To take it even further, we can suppress demographic parasitism:

1 – Incremental Suppression. (the common law of torts)

2 – Reproductive limitation. (Soft or hard eugenics)

3 – Physical Removal (Deportation or imprisonment)

4 – Genetic Pacification (Hanging).

5 – Culling (Casualties).

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY NATURAL LAW?

Humans create commands, legislation, and regulations. But Laws, both physical and natural (cooperation), we can only discover. We cannot any more create a law of cooperation (natural law) than we can a law of nature (physical laws). The only difference between physical laws and natural laws is that since we have memories, we can cooperate across time rather than be limited to the moment of the difference in potential.

A LITTLE HISTORY OF NATURAL LAW – FROM THE GOOD, TO THE MORAL, TO THE RATIONAL, TO THE SCIENTIFIC.

What do we mean by Law?

Law, in its generic sense, is a body of rules of action or conduct prescribed by controlling authority, and having binding legal force. That which must be obeyed and followed by citizens subject to sanctions or legal consequences is a law (Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 884). Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law and how the law developed.

Natural Law is a broad and often misapplied term tossed around various schools of philosophy, science, history, theology, and law. Immanuel Kant reminded us, ‘What is law?’ may be said to be about as embarrassing to the jurist as the well-know question ‘What is Truth?’ is to the logician.

Natural Law – A Moral Theory of Jurisprudence

Natural Law evolved as a moral theory of jurisprudence, which maintains that law should be based on morality and ethics. Natural Law holds that the law is based on what’s “correct.” Natural Law is “discovered” by humans through the use of reason and choosing between good and evil. Therefore, Natural Law finds its power in discovering certain universal standards in morality and ethics.

The Greeks – Living In Correspondence with The Natural World

The Greeks — Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle emphasized the distinction between “nature” (physis, φúσις) and “law,” “custom,” or “convention” (nomos, νóμος). What the law commanded varied from place to place, but what was “by nature” should be the same everywhere. Aristotle (BC 384—322) is considered by many to be the father of “natural law.” In Rhetoric, he argues that aside from “particular” laws that each people has set up for itself, there is a “common law” or “higher law” that is according to nature (Rhetoric 1373b2–8).

The Stoics — A Rational and Purposeful Law

The development of natural law theory continued in the Hellenistic school of philosophy, particularly with the Stoics. The Stoics pointed to the existence of a rational and purposeful order to the universe. The means by which a rational being lived in accordance with this cosmic order was considered natural law. Unlike Aristotle’s “higher law,” Stoic natural law was indifferent to the divine or natural source of that law. Stoic philosophy was very influential with Roman jurists such as Cicero, thus playing a significant role in the development of Roman legal theory.

The Christians — A Utopian Supernatural Law

Augustine (AD 354—430) equates natural law with man’s Pre-Fall state. Therefore, life according to nature is no longer possible and mankind must instead seek salvation through the divine law and Christ’s grace. Gratian (12th century) reconnected the concept of natural law and divine law. “The Human Race is ruled by two things: namely, natural law and usages (mos, moris, mores). Natural law is what is contained in the law and the Gospel. By it, each person is commanded to do to others what he wants done to himself and is prohibited from inflicting on others what he does not want done to himself.” (Decretum, D.1 d.a.c.1; ca. 1140 AD)

The Enlightenment Thinkers (AD 1600 – 2016) – A Rational Natural Law – From Property

(Bacon/English, Locke/British, Jefferson/Anglo-German,

The 20th Century Thinkers – The Reduction of Social Science to Property Rights

(Hayek/Austrian, Rothbard/Jewish, Hoppe/German)

21st Century Thinkers – The Science of Cooperation (In Markets)

(Doolittle)

The attempt to mature Stoic, Roman, Germanic, and British empirical law into a formal logic wherein all rights are reduced to property rights, and where such law is strictly constructed from the prohibition on the imposition of costs – costs that would cause retaliation and increase the costs, risk, and likelihood of cooperation. Impediments to cooperation. Where cooperation creates prosperity in a division of perception, cognition, knowledge, labor, and advocacy.

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.

NATURAL LAW IN THE HEIRARCHY OF LAWS

DEFINITION: LAW (‘necessary’, ‘inescapable’, or ‘unavoidable’).

1 – Law: a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), insured by the forces (organizations) of nature or man(polity, or government).

2 – Law (physical): a statement of perpetual continuity (determinism), discovered by a process of testing(prosecuting) an hypothesis against reality,

3 – Law (Natural): a statement of perpetual continuity (reciprocity) insured by the forces of nature (natural law)

4 – Law (Testimonial): A statement of perpetual continuity discovered by formal grammar and dimensional testing.

5 – Law (Common): a discovery (finding) of a violation of reciprocity, argued by a plaintiff, defendant, or prosecutor (hypothesis) of the findings of an inquiry by a judge (theory), that survives refutation from other judges (law), insured by a third party insurer of last resort (polity, government).

6 – “Law” (Command) A command issued by the insurer of last resort, insured (enforced) by that insurer of last resort.

7 – “Law” (Legislation): A contract on terms between members of ruling organization, issued by that organization, in its capacity of an insurer of last resort (self insurance).

8 – “Law” (Treaty): An agreement between insurers of last resort, under reciprocal promise of adherence and insurance.

Of these eight, command and legislation are not laws, but enforced as if they were laws. Treaties are uninsurable, because compliance is voluntary, un-enforceable, and such agreements are, and always have been regularly violated – unless insure

LAWS OF NATURE, NATURAL LAW, AND LAWS OF INFORMATION

1) Laws of nature (physical laws) and;

2) Natural laws (laws of cooperation), and;

3) Testimonial Laws (laws of information);

… consist of a spectrum dependent upon each other.

A LESSON IN NATURAL LAW

The problem with both neo-liberalism and movement-conservatism has been the assumption that the other side would eventually ‘catch on’ rather than pursue their own interests.

WHEREAS

Science as we understand it is an attempt to create a discipline of truthful speech about any given subject.

Science as we understand it does not currently ‘recognize’ this attribute of science.

Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call costs.

Science as we understand it does not include those properties we call moral.

Science as we understand it can be extended to include those properties we call costs and morality.

THEREFORE

Science as we understand it can then be restated as the discipline of constructing moral truthful speech.

Science then is identical to epistemology in philosophy, and philosophy in toto as a discipline is begun, as its first purpose, with ethics (morality), not metaphysics.

Law can now be scientifically constructed. Truth, science, law, morality are now identical. All else currently masquerading as philosophy, is no longer categorizable as philosophy, but as theology, psychology, or deception.

THE OPPOSITION

Liberal(feminine and socialist) strategy reflects the female reproductive strategy to increase the viability of her offspring regardless of its merit to the tribe, and to increase numbers in an attempt to prevent alphas from controlling the direction of evolution.

The conservative(masculine and aristocratic) strategy reflects the male reproductive strategy to increase the viability of the tribe in competition with other tribes, regardless of the interests of the uncompetitive individuals within it.

What happened instead, was that once the difference between male and female reproductive strategy was no longer constrained to the family, and that policy was no longer developed to advance the family, was that females first, and as a consequence, more recently males, have each pursued their individual reproductive interests in politics and law, instead of compromising them within the family, and voting in the interests of the family.

Ergo, just as socialism(non-merit) advances the interests of females and underclasses, aristocracy(merit) – what you call fascism – advances the interests of the male.

The institutional solution to this problem of conflict are either (a) restoration of the family as the central purpose of policy – rather than the individual, or (b) the separation of houses in to gender, class and race, so that all must agree to any policy in order for it to ascend into legislative law.

The west advanced faster than ‘the rest’ in large part because of successfully instituted eugenic reproduction over a period of many hundreds of years.

1) Late marriage ensuring women were experienced at working and running households.

2) Prohibition on cousin marriage out to as many as 12 generations – ensuring limited genetic damage from inbreeding that is so influential in much of the world.

3) Extension of property rights to women ensuring that cousin marriage could not be used to hold territory in a clan.

4) The use of Bipartite Manorialism to restrict access to farmland to married couples of demonstrated character sufficient to make use of it.

5) Heavy taxation that limited the reproduction of the lower classes.

6) Hanging 1/2 to 1% of the population every single year.

7) The cumulative effect being the upward redistribution of reproduction to the genetic middle class.

Liberalism(female reproductive strategy) inverts this aristocracy/fascism(male reproductive strategy), redistributing reproduction downward to the lower classes.

WHY DOES THIS DIFFERENCE EXIST?

Man has developed two strategies for organizing(governing) societies, with each necessary for the demographics each governs.

1) The Persian/Iranian/Jewish/Egyptian (Managers)

In the fertile crescent the climate allows the survival of many offspring and the use of flood plains can make use of genetically lower class labor and slaves.

In the Persian/Jewish/Egyptian model, an elite uses verbal mysticism to dominate and ‘farm’ the lower classes, using large slave armies.

2) The Chinese / Russian (Conquerors)

The Conquering Peoples. The Chinese rapidly advanced beyond flood plains out of defense against raiding neighbors and then converted to authoritarian conquerors. But out of genetic and cultural diversity, had to maintain authoritarian order.

The Russians -steppe raiders- learned their governance from the conquering Mongols, and so started as conquerors, and because of genetic and cultural diversity had to maintain authoritarian order – bypassing both the flood pain, and the

3) The Hellenic/Roman/Germanic (Enfranchisers)

The forest-and-rivers of the European plain allow for if not require, individual family farms, and the survival of harsh winters limits the ability of the genetically lower classes from survival.

In the Hellenic/Roman/Germanic model, an elite uses rule of law among many peers to suppress the reproduction and burden of the lower classes, using militia and voluntarily organized warriors.

4) The Hindu/South American Model (Failed Managers)

In this model the aristocracy is so overwhelmed by the numbers of the underclasses that it cannot create Pareto-distribution of property, and without the control of the flood plains, the only method of insuring the survivability of the populace is through castes, and constraining the upper classes from down-breeding.

We see this socialist strategy today in the Islamic forced indoctrination, in Jewish verbalism – information control by saturation of it, and in Chinese/Russian violence/censorship – information control by limiting it. All three of these methods are constructed of deceit.

We see this aristocratic strategy today only in Germanic the west, that still seeks to parent society into a universal genetic middle class – an ‘aristocracy of everyone’ – by the suppression or at least out-casting of the underclasses.

THE WEST MUST CHOOSE A FUTURE SUITABLE TO ITS DEMOGRAPHIC, AND A DEMOGRAPHIC SUITABLE TO ITS DESIRED FUTURE

1 – The Aristocratic Egalitarian System (that everyone seems to want to belong to) (innovative, expansionary)

2 – The Caste System (which is evolving in South America) (Static, Static)

3 – The Authoritarian Disinformation System (Russia and china) (Static, expansionary)

4 – The Authoritarian Mystical System (Judaism in all its many forms / Islamism in all its forms) (Parasitic, Regressive, Expansionary)

In the end, we must abandon the pseudosciences of the Jewish Enlightenment: Boaz, Freud, Marx, and the Frankfurt School. As well as the pseudosciences of the continentals: the postmodernists. As well as the pseudosciences of the soviets.

Our world is as genetic as that of domesticated animals. We are unequal. And it is more important that we suppress the reproduction of the lower classes than it is that we attempt to improve the upper.

There is precious little evidence that more than two and a half standard deviations in intelligence make much difference – instead it introduces dysfunction. Our problem is increasing the domestication and intelligence of the population by one standard deviation (15 points) and we cannot do that, nor possess prosperity, nor redistribution, nor liberty, if we reverse three thousand years of eugenic reproduction.

This is the world as it is. Governing the people we possess. With the people we possess to govern with.

Neoliberalism is yet another lie. A new mysticism. A secular religion. An evolution of Egyptian, Persian, Jewish, Muslim thought. Nothing more. Yet another set of appealing lies.

And those lies are a prison for genes, and therefore for man.