Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • TRUTH IN ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN WEST: What no one will retaliate for (low poli

    TRUTH IN ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIAN WEST:

    What no one will retaliate for (low political time preference)

    TRUTH IN GHETTO ETHICS

    What I can get away with at the moment (high political time preference)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-05 08:12:00 UTC

  • ARE FUNDAMENTALIST MOVEMENTS RATIONAL? If you mean by ‘rational’ to imply ‘justi

    ARE FUNDAMENTALIST MOVEMENTS RATIONAL?

    If you mean by ‘rational’ to imply ‘justificationary’ for the purpose of granting higher ontological status to internal consistency than internal correspondence, then yes.

    That is the meaning of “Fundamentalist”: internally consistent but non correspondent.

    We can treat FUNDAMENTALISM as a reaction to RATIONALISM, just as we can treat SCRIPTURALISM as a reaction to REASON.

    Both technologies and their modern equivalent :

    (PSEUDOSCIENCE AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS are a Reaction to SCIENCE.)

    Seek to give higher criteria for decidability to internal consistency rather than external correspondence.

    This is also the source of the various sects that attempt to create “Social Justice” and “Social Truth”.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-05 08:10:00 UTC

  • AMERICAN EUPHEMISM FOR MY UKRAINIAN FRIENDS In response to surprise that someone

    AMERICAN EUPHEMISM FOR MY UKRAINIAN FRIENDS

    In response to surprise that someone is ignorant of something:

    —“Where have you been?!!”—

    In other words: “How the hell did you not know that? Were you living under a rock? Are you oblivious to the world around you?”

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-05 08:03:00 UTC

  • VARIATIONS ON TRUTH (very much worth repeating) Truth and Adherence to Rules are

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/07/11/cultural-variants-of-truth-and-the-consequences/CULTURAL VARIATIONS ON TRUTH

    (very much worth repeating)

    Truth and Adherence to Rules are two different things. (submission)

    Truth and Fidelity to Contract are two different things.

    Truth and Duty are two different things.

    Truth and Knowledge are two different things.

    Truth as Adherence – Familialism (most of the world)

    Truth as Fidelity – Tribalism (judaism)

    Truth as Duty – Nationalism (germans)

    Truth as Science – Universalism. (english)

    The principle of truth to to an Adherence community consists of order. The principle of ‘truth’ to a contract community consists of fidelity. The principle of truth to a truth-telling community consists of ***SCIENCE***

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-05 06:06:00 UTC

  • Q: Curt: Is The Occupation of Artist a Moral One?

    [O]bjective Morality consists of prohibitions on the impositions of costs upon others that would provide a disincentive for cooperation. We produce many norms that we treat as morality, just as we produce political commands that we treat as law. But norms are not necessarily moral, and legislation is rarely law. We also conflate heroism with morality. Which despite being two sides of the same coin, are opposites. Heroism consists in contributing to the commons. Morality in not privatizing the commons (parasitism). So an artist can be heroic or not, and an artist can be moral or not. He can be heroic and moral. He can be moral but not heroic. It is quite hard to be heroic and immoral. They tend to cancel each other out. So if an artist is not living parasitically, is producing art that is not immoral, and attempting to contribute to the commons, he is moral and heroic.

  • Q: Curt: Is The Occupation of Artist a Moral One?

    [O]bjective Morality consists of prohibitions on the impositions of costs upon others that would provide a disincentive for cooperation. We produce many norms that we treat as morality, just as we produce political commands that we treat as law. But norms are not necessarily moral, and legislation is rarely law. We also conflate heroism with morality. Which despite being two sides of the same coin, are opposites. Heroism consists in contributing to the commons. Morality in not privatizing the commons (parasitism). So an artist can be heroic or not, and an artist can be moral or not. He can be heroic and moral. He can be moral but not heroic. It is quite hard to be heroic and immoral. They tend to cancel each other out. So if an artist is not living parasitically, is producing art that is not immoral, and attempting to contribute to the commons, he is moral and heroic.

  • Writing user documentation is so much better than marketing material. lol

    Writing user documentation is so much better than marketing material. lol.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-04 15:36:00 UTC

  • Q: How Can You Prove Monotheism Wrong?

    Note: the O’henry ending is that given the alternatives why would you claim monotheism was not wrong except for immoral ends?

    How can you prove monotheism wrong, Mr. Doolittle?

    [W]ell that depends upon your concept of Gods. If you say that there is one set of optimum laws of man and nature then I would agree that this is truth and truth and God are synonyms. If you say that we seek to find an anthropomorphic representation of those laws which man can seek to achieve, aspire to imitate, or at least obey, then I would agree with that. If you say that there exists one God then that is demonstrably false. Since clearly many exist and have existed, and most are incompatible. If you say that there exists a supernatural entity in the universe with sentience and will that is not a construct of man and mans minds then I would question your reasoning. It is not for me to prove one God is false. Since I clearly advocate the first and second principles above. It is instead am a question of why those who say otherwise do so? In other words if there is some thing that violates that truth, natural and physical laws then it either is not God, or it is the work of men trying to deceive us. So my response is that since I try to act in accordance with laws that man cannot use for deceptive purposes, why would you or others seek to advocate that which is not compatible with truth, natural and physical law, except to do so for deceptive purposes, or because you are pawns if that which is not God?

  • Q: How Can You Prove Monotheism Wrong?

    Note: the O’henry ending is that given the alternatives why would you claim monotheism was not wrong except for immoral ends?

    How can you prove monotheism wrong, Mr. Doolittle?

    [W]ell that depends upon your concept of Gods. If you say that there is one set of optimum laws of man and nature then I would agree that this is truth and truth and God are synonyms. If you say that we seek to find an anthropomorphic representation of those laws which man can seek to achieve, aspire to imitate, or at least obey, then I would agree with that. If you say that there exists one God then that is demonstrably false. Since clearly many exist and have existed, and most are incompatible. If you say that there exists a supernatural entity in the universe with sentience and will that is not a construct of man and mans minds then I would question your reasoning. It is not for me to prove one God is false. Since I clearly advocate the first and second principles above. It is instead am a question of why those who say otherwise do so? In other words if there is some thing that violates that truth, natural and physical laws then it either is not God, or it is the work of men trying to deceive us. So my response is that since I try to act in accordance with laws that man cannot use for deceptive purposes, why would you or others seek to advocate that which is not compatible with truth, natural and physical law, except to do so for deceptive purposes, or because you are pawns if that which is not God?

  • What is the Source of Political Power? Organizing Using Three Tools of Coercion.

    –“Curt: Political power ultimately originates from Economics or exchange, right?”—

    [I] am not sure I understand this question. There are three methods of power: 1) force, 2) payment, 3) gossip. One can use those three methods exclusively or in combination to band together into groups or hierarchies, and the focus the group’s efforts on the application of force, payment, or gossip (rallying/shaming/including/ostracizing). Political power – meaning anything ranging from monopoly producer of commons to a distributed production of commons – can be constructed from any one or combination of, those methods of coercion. Political power originates in the ability of humans to organize and coerce. It just so happens that we use gossip to rally and shame and ostracize people from production and opportunity for consumption. But then we scale. It just so happens that you need to use violence to suppress parasitism sufficiently for a market to form, at that scale. But then we scale further. And then to use law to suppress cheating, fraud, and to impose performance, and restitution, and if necessary, punishment. But then we scale further. And then we use wealth created by the application of violence and law and to force market participation rather than parasitism, to pay off those who cannot be forced. And then, we hit the novel inflection point, and scale further: And so we then use force, law and gossip to suppress the suppressors, and rely entirely upon rule of law, without a group that exercises power. So the sooner one develops rule of law, the sooner one starts suppressing the parasitism of the monopoly. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.