Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 07:45:00 UTC

  • ***Western Man. Hegel’s Wrong. We need purpose. Truth, pacification and transcen

    ***Western Man. Hegel’s Wrong. We need purpose. Truth, pacification and transcendence are a positive purpose. Rather than every other groups parasitism as a negative purpose.***

    Women have been our downfall.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 07:15:00 UTC

  • Once you get to the point where you recognize genes make us puppets on their beh

    Once you get to the point where you recognize genes make us puppets on their behalf, and that all speech is justification and negotiation, and that we have limited means of coercion of one another, then human behavior as well as all human history is easily comprehended.

    Empathy works somewhat to overload us. Suggestion can be used to invoke empathy and sympathy and therefore overload us.

    We thought the world was flat.

    We though we were self aware.

    But they are both errors in observation.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 04:27:00 UTC

  • PACIFICATION AND TRANSCENDENCE GIVE US PURPOSE (Generally I date in my gene pool

    PACIFICATION AND TRANSCENDENCE GIVE US PURPOSE

    (Generally I date in my gene pool. But I dated a half-amerindian woman for years. They are wired differently. It’s kind of beautiful and tragic: dream state and reality are not so separate as they are in us. I have also dated three jewish women for long enough periods to understand them – and I thought the differences were cultural – but it’s genetic. They’re just wired differently. Probably from only recently giving up frequent husband swapping (serial marriage) relatively late in the late middle ages, combined with higher semitic aggression, combined with higher distaste for outsiders, combined with lower trust. It taught me a lot about what we ‘do wrong’ in our civilization. Just because you’re better politically doesn’t mean you’re competitive against every other group. It’s a weakness. And this is one of the origins of my emphasis on expansionary pacification and transcendence. We need purpose. Pacification and transcendence are a positive purpose for change rather than every other groups parasitism as a negative purpose. This is important.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 04:05:00 UTC

  • WHY THE NAP/IVP IS JUSTIFICATION FOR THIEVERY AND FRAUD —“you remove the NAP f

    WHY THE NAP/IVP IS JUSTIFICATION FOR THIEVERY AND FRAUD

    —“you remove the NAP from the class of individual choice”—

    Then if NAP is just a means of individual choice, and not a moral proposition, then why would one choose to avoid moral choices? Except to act immorally? Which is my criticism. The NAP was adopted by rothbard as a half truth in order to perpetuate ghetto ethics.

    It’s a logical box. You wont’ get out of it. Rothbardianism is objectively immoral.

    It is insufficient for a personal determination of rational action. It is insufficient for interpersonal moral decidability. And it is insufficient for a political basis for law. And its insufficient for the basis of anarchic polity, and therefore it is insufficient for the basis of liberty.

    So if it is insufficient for each of these criteria: decision, non-retaliation, and economic and political cooperation, and sufficient basis of cooperation for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state as method of decidability… then what is it’s function other than to allow one to engage in deceits?

    So the NAP is a fraud by suggestion, just as I have stated, because it is nothing more than an attempt to escape paying the high cost of liberty, through the mutual defense of one another’s property-en-toto from the imposition of costs, by organized application of violence to demand and enforce restitution for those costs.

    So it’s not just that the NAP is insufficient for moral action, it is that the NAP is an attempt both to justify parasitism by non violent means, and justify non payment of insurance.

    That is not liberty. That’s cunning thievery.

    That’s the end you know. You can try all you want. But rothbardian immoralism falsely labeled with the term liberty is merely another great cosmopolitan lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 03:53:00 UTC

  • My experience is that most purchasing departments exist to cause vendors to fail

    My experience is that most purchasing departments exist to cause vendors to fail, engage in political positioning, and/or rent seeking. A good purchasing department functions like a lawyer who is too busy: they make sure you don’t hurt yourself. But a young lawyer trying to prove himself, or a purchasing agent trying to prove himself is something very different. They create problems by trying to create value. I was too naive about big business in my early life. The optimum behavior is to find out what makes the agent successful and give him what he wants even if it is bad for his business. I find this immoral. I want to give organizations what they need regardless of whether they understand it or not. This is most visible in the construction industry where the architects and primary contractors do not possess the knowledge to construct the building, only the suppliers do. But purchasing engages in all sorts of schemes to get reduced prices then trap vendors into bankruptcy by enforcing bids made without sufficient information. And while construction may be the most corrupt field in this regard outside of state dependent contractors, and then state employees – and their corruption the reason for the existence of most code and regulation – the same thing happens at CocaCola, Nabisco, Comcast, Dell, ATT, Intel, Microsoft (less so – they have management problems instead) and dozens more I could name (and not TMobile in my experience). Running a moral business takes more effort but it almost always ends up in your favor in the long term.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 03:43:00 UTC

  • FROM AGGRESSION TO NON AGGRESSION This should help people understand how the NAP

    FROM AGGRESSION TO NON AGGRESSION

    This should help people understand how the NAP was a cunning lie.

    -3) – You can choose to aggress against the property en toto of others. This is called predation. But you must defend yourself against retaliation and extermination. (Usual criticism of Islamists)

    -2) – You can choose to aggress against the private and common property but not life of others. This is called thievery. But you will experience retaliation for it. (usual criticism of gypsies)

    -1) – You can choose not to aggress against the life and physical property of others but retain the possibility of parasitic existence through deception. But you will experience retaliation. (usual criticism of jews)

    0) – You can choose not to aggress against the property en toto of others and by doing so it is almost impossible to invoke retaliation. This is called boycott. But you cannot defend your property en toto, private property, or life from those of superior means who wish to deprive you of it.

    +1) – You can engage in productive exchange with others, both benefit and not invoke retaliation. This is called trade. But you cannot defend your property en toto, private property, or life from those of superior means who wish to deprive you of it.

    +2) – You can engage in reciprocal insurance of others and thereby obtain insurance from them. This is called Liberty. So that you can defend your property en toto, private property, and life from those who wish to deprive you of it.

    +3) – You can invest your profits in the commons in exchange for status (increased opportunity and discounts), or productivity (increased returns), and cooperate for the defense of those commons from privatization and destruction. This is called a polity. (Europa)

    +4) – You can actively impose property-en-toto upon others both to reduce your costs and to improve your returns. This is called pacification. (Usual example is Rome, British Empire, American Empire)

    Non Aggression against property-en-toto (demonstrated property), is sufficient for non-retaliation. Reciprocal insurance of property-en-toto is sufficient for defense and the formation of a polity. Contribution to the commons is sufficient for obtaining compound intergenerational returns. Pacification is sufficient for the evolution of civilization.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 02:54:00 UTC

  • “By and large, it appears that there’s just a very high cost of temporal flexibi

    —“By and large, it appears that there’s just a very high cost of temporal flexibility in certain occupations.”—Claudia Goldin, Harvard

    the marginal difference in gender pay

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 22:43:00 UTC

  • BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM All non-tautological stat

    BRIEF DISCUSSION OF THE EPISTEMOLOGY OF TESTIMONIALISM

    All non-tautological statements are incomplete, and as such no non-trivial premises are complete. Therefore all statements consist of nothing more than theoretical promises contingent upon their survival of criticism.

    We can systematically criticize each dimension of every statement for identity, internal consistency, existential possibility, external correspondence, morality, full accounting, limits and parsimony.

    If the statement survives this (admittedly expensive) criticism, then it remains a truth candidate that we can take risks with or not as our judgement sees fit.

    Instead of justification providing legitimacy or support, provides a discount on later warranties, not an increase in truth content.

    This last statement kind of threw me because I wasn’t expecting to come to that kind of conclusion.

    So it still behooves me to work on this problem. I still move it forward a bit at a time. The further I move it the less questions are left open and the more survivable the theory is from refutation.

    The hardest problem of all is parsimony, and as far as I know the only way to achieve this is through publication and social criticism.

    Thanks for following me on the journey.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 13:14:00 UTC

  • REASONS TO ARGUE WITH “AMATEURS” ON THE WEB. There are two reasons to conduct ar

    REASONS TO ARGUE WITH “AMATEURS” ON THE WEB.

    There are two reasons to conduct arguments in forums, or their long history of ancestors back to Newsgroups, CompuServe, bulletin boards, and newsletters.

    First is to learn how to defeat BAD arguments made by amateurs. Primarily because the mass of political voters in this world are amateurs.

    Second to understand the psychology of those who engage in sentimental rather than informed arguments.

    What you learn is that many men cannot argue from a position of weakness by simply asking questions. And that many young men in particular who feel outcast, hold to rationalist status seeking life rafts like rats in a sinking ship.

    So what you eventually come to understand, is that (a) it’s a combative way of learning for some who do not have access to quality teachers, professors, or the ability to digest written material. And (b) a combative way of getting attention on the other, from those who feel alienated. And lastly (c) a way to develop skill debating amateurs.

    I have a great deal of respect for the latter use, and used it myself. It is a great way to learn to conduct verbal sparring, and to learn all the logical fallacies that amateurs depend upon.

    I like to help individuals who need access to someone informed due to their inability to make a connection during their education. I see this as something between a moral obligation and a public service. Men are not treated well by our feminized education system.

    But I don’t like to waste my time on the borderline schizotypal personalities or those who merely want attention.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 11:29:00 UTC