[W]e are coming with internet, radios, guns, molotovs, where our ancestors came with leaflets, guns, torches and nooses; and their ancestors came with letters, pitchforks, torches, and knives; and their ancestors with word of mouth, spears, torches, and knives. We are coming. They know we are coming. But we are legion.
Author: Curt Doolittle
-
We are Coming. We are Legion.
[W]e are coming with internet, radios, guns, molotovs, where our ancestors came with leaflets, guns, torches and nooses; and their ancestors came with letters, pitchforks, torches, and knives; and their ancestors with word of mouth, spears, torches, and knives. We are coming. They know we are coming. But we are legion.
-
Drones Hovering
[D]rones Hovering 1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones. 2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then 3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes. 4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines. So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.
-
Drones Hovering
[D]rones Hovering 1) We probably need to maintain a right of Transitus (transit) but not a right of Observo(observation) or Usus (use) for drones. I can’t see how to get around this. That means that you must have the ability to navigate but not the ability to observe. (this is pretty easy. we put blinders on horses, we can put a horizontal blinder on transiting drones. 2) Rights of Observo(observation) into human activity(not territory alone) require either permission or warrant. In other words, if you have a big ranch, or a territorial view, and the drone is silent, and in transit, it is hard to say that this infringes on your actions. However if your actions are being observed,such that you are put at risk of either embarrassment for normal activities (sex, affection, emotional release, play), or put at risk for predation (gathering information with which to engage in the imposition of costs), then 3) What I would expect to see otherwise is the equivalent of camouflage netting, designed to defeat drones, or active repulsion systems designed to blind them when attempting to observe homes. 4) What I hope someone creates is drones that kill other drones. These are very cheap to make, and a ‘necessary’ defense mechanism against the possibility of predation enhanced by observation (spying). As a criminal endeavor it is quite easy to use drones to look for homes to rob. It is also easy to use drones to attack power lines. So a drone in motion at altitude is somewhat hard to criticize. While a drone hovering or exploring private property is not.
-
The Challenge of Our Time is Deceit
[W]e spend a lot of time on logical fallacies, which assume mere error on the part of one’s opponent. We have begun to spend a lot of time on Cognitive Biases which affect one’s opponent. But both of these disciplines assume that the other party errs. When the problem of modern era, is not error but deception: lying. Social Pseudoscience, Keynesian Pseudoscience, postmodernism, rationalist obscurantism, propaganda and overloading, rallying and shaming, feminism, political correctness, religion and mysticism, democratic secular humanism (a pseudoscientific religion). All of these are possible not by error, not by bias, but by the organized use of language and media as a means of conducting theft by deception. The problem of our time is DECEPTION. How do we cleanse the commons of deceit? That’s why I work on Testimonialism (truth telling) and propertarianism (limits of human action) and propertarian liberalism (the market construction of commons.) End the century of lies.
-
The Challenge of Our Time is Deceit
[W]e spend a lot of time on logical fallacies, which assume mere error on the part of one’s opponent. We have begun to spend a lot of time on Cognitive Biases which affect one’s opponent. But both of these disciplines assume that the other party errs. When the problem of modern era, is not error but deception: lying. Social Pseudoscience, Keynesian Pseudoscience, postmodernism, rationalist obscurantism, propaganda and overloading, rallying and shaming, feminism, political correctness, religion and mysticism, democratic secular humanism (a pseudoscientific religion). All of these are possible not by error, not by bias, but by the organized use of language and media as a means of conducting theft by deception. The problem of our time is DECEPTION. How do we cleanse the commons of deceit? That’s why I work on Testimonialism (truth telling) and propertarianism (limits of human action) and propertarian liberalism (the market construction of commons.) End the century of lies.
-
IP: Why Should An Author Have The Right To Income On Ideas and Opinions
[W]ell, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear. Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use. This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism. This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better. One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward. This is what I object to, and I consider immoral. I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.
-
IP: Why Should An Author Have The Right To Income On Ideas and Opinions
[W]ell, I am not sure we should unless we want to subsidize the production of more ideas and opinions than can be produced without subsidy. And the evidence is that we produce far more ideas and opinions than the market will bear. Propertarianism says the opposite: that you may not sell those ideas and opinions without contributing a percentage of the income to the author. We call this the Creative Commons license. Which is that creative products cannot have commercial use without compensation, but have free use for non-commercial use. This strategy does not violate the test of productivity or parasitism. This would have an enormous impact on the publishing industry, all of which would be for the better. One of the reasons, if not the most important reason that we have sh_t art, literature and cinema, is that the creative subsidy of copyright protection shifts the quality downward. This is what I object to, and I consider immoral. I do not consider individual cases of ip protection (subsidy generation) necessarily bad if they are to produce goods that the market cannot afford to. In other words, I consider IP an effective method with which a market can conduct off-book research and development at low cost and risk. In fact, I cannot think of a better combination of incentives than the private sector taking all the risk and paying all the cost of failure, and only profiting if they succeed. This is a great set of incentives.
-
Is Islam Objectively Evil? Why?
[I]t is not that one fails to comprehend it (accept its fallacies). It is that it is objectively evil in every dimension:
One does not judge a product by its advertising but by it's performance. One does not judge a religion by its narrative or claims, but by the status of its adherents. One does not judge a statement by its meaning or justification but by its truth or falsehood. One does not justify antique (primitive) language and reasoning ,in modern (advanced) context.So advocates make at least these four errors – all of which are both false and mere excuses to do what is familiar rather than to do what is true. Islam is the most regressive philosophy on earth – it is even worse than communism. All others are superior. They are superior because the epistemology, social order, and objective of the competitors are superior. The only measure of a philosophy is the economic status of its adherents. The only measure of a business plan is its success in the market. The only measure of a political system is its non-parasitic production of commons. The only measure of your argument is an excuse to persist what amounts to one of the great lies of history that weaponizes ignorance. Islam spreads ignorance in the mind and consequential poverty. Just as communism spread pseudoscience and poverty. Every word you speak it its advocacy defense, or practice is destructive to mankind. This a merely an empirical statement. I can, conversely, construct an internal consistent argument of why islam manufactures ignorance, but this is beyond this conversation. And with both internal consistency and external correspondence, and moral objectivity, we have constructed a scientific argument that objectively demonstrates that islam is everything a devil would wish it to be: the cancer of mankind. -
Is Islam Objectively Evil? Why?
[I]t is not that one fails to comprehend it (accept its fallacies). It is that it is objectively evil in every dimension:
One does not judge a product by its advertising but by it's performance. One does not judge a religion by its narrative or claims, but by the status of its adherents. One does not judge a statement by its meaning or justification but by its truth or falsehood. One does not justify antique (primitive) language and reasoning ,in modern (advanced) context.So advocates make at least these four errors – all of which are both false and mere excuses to do what is familiar rather than to do what is true. Islam is the most regressive philosophy on earth – it is even worse than communism. All others are superior. They are superior because the epistemology, social order, and objective of the competitors are superior. The only measure of a philosophy is the economic status of its adherents. The only measure of a business plan is its success in the market. The only measure of a political system is its non-parasitic production of commons. The only measure of your argument is an excuse to persist what amounts to one of the great lies of history that weaponizes ignorance. Islam spreads ignorance in the mind and consequential poverty. Just as communism spread pseudoscience and poverty. Every word you speak it its advocacy defense, or practice is destructive to mankind. This a merely an empirical statement. I can, conversely, construct an internal consistent argument of why islam manufactures ignorance, but this is beyond this conversation. And with both internal consistency and external correspondence, and moral objectivity, we have constructed a scientific argument that objectively demonstrates that islam is everything a devil would wish it to be: the cancer of mankind.