Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Q&A: WHAT IS THE POINT OF POLYCENTRIC LAW? –“I don’t think most polycentrists c

    Q&A: WHAT IS THE POINT OF POLYCENTRIC LAW?

    –“I don’t think most polycentrists claim that polycentric law would be conflicting or arbitrary, not much more than it already is, certainly not to the degree that it would be rendered undecidable.”—

    Well, first, just to point out the obvious, then what is the point of it? Emotional satisfaction? The common law is already polycentric. In the sense that it evolves through every single judgement, and can be appealed on the basis of erroneous judicial judgement (not on the facts, but on the application of law).

    The question facing libertarians is that polycentrisim is a convenient intellectual distraction from having failed to determine a necessary and sufficient means upon which to construct law.

    Now I know enough cosmopolitan philosophy to know that this is the central strategy of cosmopolitan authors and their jewish predecessors: to state a half truth in order to allow subjective judgement to survive.

    I have only begun my work on their strategy of deception through suggestion but I see it as not terribly helpful to my cause. So I haven’t taken it far enough.

    Operationalism eliminates the tactic so that its no longer possible. I am more interested in the solution (operationalism and testimonialism) than I am in criticizing the group evolutionary strategy of the jewish enlightenment.

    Hence why I focus on solutions rather than criticisms.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC

  • Q&A: HOW CAN WE REPEAL ARCHAIC LAW? —“Are there provisions for repealing archa

    Q&A: HOW CAN WE REPEAL ARCHAIC LAW?

    —“Are there provisions for repealing archaic law?”—

    Since independent, organically evolved common law is not legislated, it need not be repealed. It need only be falsified by new law – just as all sciences falsify old theories with newer better theories.

    In general both law and theory add precision, rather than falsify.

    One of the values of strictly constructed law is that (a) it is very hard to create an erroneous law, and (b) it is easy to restructure(refactor) it (just as we restructure a program in software).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC

  • Q&A: IS INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR LAW? –“I’ve

    Q&A: IS INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR LAW?

    –“I’ve read your articles on incremental suppression of parasitism. Is that the only way law evolves in your formulation? “—

    I cannot think of any other reason for LAW to evolve, even though I can think of many reasons why alternative CONTRACTS would evolve.

    So when you are referring to the term ‘law’, I suspect you use the common convention of conflating discovered law, legislative command, legislative contract, and regulatory law into a single category of ‘that which must be obeyed’.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC

  • Q&A: CURT, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF PREDICTION MARKETS? —“what do you think of pre

    Q&A: CURT, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF PREDICTION MARKETS?

    —“what do you think of prediction markets?”—

    Unfortunately, this is an incomplete question. 🙂 To have an opinion I must have some outcome (context) to judge them. As an empirical means of obtaining excellent information and overcoming journalistic bias, I think that they are very close to self-insured propositions. And as a Propertarian and Testimonialist, I have nothing but good to say about them as experiments in demonstrating the LACK of quality of the opinions of public intellectuals. (which I think we all know is only useful as a set of propositions to choose between, not as particularly predictive.)

    But it’s possible that your question may intend to ask whether we may institutionalize prediction markets for some particular end. And I’d have to know that end in order to answer it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:38:00 UTC

  • HIERARCHY OF COGNITIVE HUMAN SYSTEMS G-GENES, 0-PROPERTY (acquisition strategy)

    HIERARCHY OF COGNITIVE HUMAN SYSTEMS

    G-GENES,

    0-PROPERTY (acquisition strategy)

    1-INTUITION, (search)

    2-REASON, (stack/order)

    3-COOPERATION (division of perception, cognition, knowledge, advocacy, labor)

    Kahneman isn’t enough. Haidt isn’t enough. Propertarianism is enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:26:00 UTC

  • What do you think of this (on forms of government)

    What do you think of this (on forms of government):

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:17:00 UTC

  • LIARS AND PROXY LIARS: TESTIMONIALISM IS THE CURE QUESTION: Mustn’t one knowingl

    LIARS AND PROXY LIARS: TESTIMONIALISM IS THE CURE

    QUESTION: Mustn’t one knowingly lie to be labelled a liar?

    ANSWER: Yes under justification, and No under Criticism.

    Liars? Like the Frankfurt school lies. Like women lie. It is hard to know if they know better, or just follow the commands of their genetic puppeteer, just as the idiocy of christian suicidal altruism is hard to determine if one is a puppet, a habituator of the lies of predecessors, or a liar in one’s self.

    So by your question you would not punish a man for lying for having failed to perform due diligence on his statements, whereas I would.

    A proxy liar is still a liar.

    Failure to perform due diligence allows one to propagate lies. Requiring due diligence prevents the propagation of lies.

    One can teach people supposed truths. Or one can teach people how to launder falsehoods.

    A critical rationalist can not hold the former position with intellectual consistency.

    (In other words, the Brits in the LA movement are arguing an intellectual contradiction.)

    (So forgiving lying by proxy is also an expansion of postmodernism.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:02:00 UTC

  • Q&A; ON THE COMMONS. PLUS, BONUS: RESTATING MARXISM VS PROPERTARIANISM (I am tur

    Q&A; ON THE COMMONS. PLUS, BONUS: RESTATING MARXISM VS PROPERTARIANISM

    (I am turning out to be an enemy of the twentieth century’s advocacy of highly loaded easily understood, short sentences.)

    —“The mainstream econ definition of a common good is one which is rivalrous but non-excludable. So in this sense, I understand why one might consider law itself a common good, but court systems? Is demonstration sufficient to consider something a common good? I mean, wouldn’t Marxists consider everything to be common goods?”—

    –“rivalrous but non-excludable”—

    But is that demonstrably true? Is any good non-excludable?

    Instead, humans demonstrably reciprocally insure all property against some subset of:

    1) Constituo – Homesteading: Convert into property through bearing a cost of transformation.

    2) Transitus – Transit: passage through 3d space.

    3) Usus – Use: setting up a stall.

    4) Fructus – Fruits: (blackberries, wood, profits)

    5) Mancipio – Emancipation: (sale, transfer)

    6) Abusus – Abuse: (Consumption or Destruction) Opposite of Constituo.

    A park is an interesting example: we grant people Transitus, but deny all other rights.

    A common grazing ground is another interesting example: we grant transitus, fructus, but that is all.

    A monument (or a church, which is our most common monument), we grant only transitus.

    We prohibit people from denying Transitus where it imposes unnecessary burdens: property lines.

    Water is another interesting example, we deny pollution that externalizes costs. We have done the same recently with air. We probably need to do the same with the seas.

    But does any people tolerate abusus? (making land uninhabitable or unusable?) Only where land is not valuable.

    A commons is that which some group has expended effort (born costs) to inventory, and to prohibit one or more rights, the most common of which is Abusus, Mancipio and Constituo. (See Nobel Prize Winner Elanor Ostrom’s work)

    —“wouldn’t Marxists consider everything to be common goods?”—

    It is better to see marxists as preserving discretion and accrual of debt to produce a dysgenic order, and property rights advocates as eliminating discretion and replacing it with accrual of debt, to produce a eugenic order. In other words, marxists are promoting the parasitic female strategy to reverse civilization, and propertarians are promoting the productive male strategy to continue civilization.

    (This is a profound restatement of these issues)

    Curt

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 07:46:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a photo

    Curt Doolittle shared a photo.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 07:24:00 UTC

  • BTW: ON BEING A “DANDY” Before homosexuals took control of mens fashion, there w

    BTW: ON BEING A “DANDY”

    Before homosexuals took control of mens fashion, there was a social space between what we consider gay, metrosexual, and formal (cary grant), called ‘dandy’.

    —Dandy: a man who places particular importance upon physical appearance, refined language, and leisurely hobbies, pursued with the appearance of nonchalance in a cult of Self.—

    In other words, a non-martial aristocrat.

    Jeffrey Tucker is a dandy, I am a bit of a dandy – although much less so in eastern Europe where it attracts female parasites. A lot of us have artistic backgrounds and appreciate beauty.

    Unfortunately the gay community has appropriated this space for their own signaling, and made it nearly impossible for straight males to use as signaling. So we have to tone it down a bit.

    So those who might criticize tucker merely do not grasp the signaling problems of the highly aesthetic. We all signal our excellences. Taste is an excellent signal. Knowledge is an excellent signal. Discipline is an excellent signal. Manners are an excellent signal. IN fact, they are all excellences. If combined with martial sacrifice, and entrepreneurial success (or at least survival) it is probably the ultimate expression of middle class achievement.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 07:22:00 UTC