Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • My standard is not sentiment, not criticism, but theory. Hoppe yes. MM yes if le

    My standard is not sentiment, not criticism, but theory. Hoppe yes. MM yes if less so. Everyone else, I don’t see theory.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 17:29:36 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636591337698160640

    Reply addressees: @Nick_B_Steves

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636590848268992512

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @Nick_B_Steves I didn’t say others didn’t I said I don’t know. I can only go through lists and read. 😉

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/636590848268992512

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @Nick_B_Steves I didn’t say others didn’t I said I don’t know. I can only go through lists and read. 😉

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/636590848268992512

  • I didn’t say others didn’t I said I don’t know. I can only go through lists and

    I didn’t say others didn’t I said I don’t know. I can only go through lists and read. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 17:27:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636590848268992512

    Reply addressees: @Nick_B_Steves

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636584437485051904

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636584437485051904

  • Well, in my world we use proper names. I’m hardly enemy material. lol

    Well, in my world we use proper names. I’m hardly enemy material. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 16:43:24 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636579708474380288

    Reply addressees: @Nick_B_Steves @IT_Reactionary

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636517568757530624

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636517568757530624

  • I dont understand

    I dont understand.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 16:42:03 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636579368156954624

    Reply addressees: @Nick_B_Steves

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636518771436486656

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636518771436486656

  • (still sick. damn. thought i’d get over it today. on the road in the morning tho

    (still sick. damn. thought i’d get over it today. on the road in the morning though.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 12:12:00 UTC

  • I think you’re misreading something. Enlightenment Critique (Comment), vs Marxis

    I think you’re misreading something. Enlightenment Critique (Comment), vs Marxist Critique (CofC), vs Criticism (science).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 11:42:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636504071676014592

    Reply addressees: @IT_Reactionary

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636301523744591872

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @IT_Reactionary Thx 🙂 Pls help me with the ‘lack of criticism’ reference. If I got it wrong I want to know. -cheers

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/636301523744591872

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @IT_Reactionary Thx 🙂 Pls help me with the ‘lack of criticism’ reference. If I got it wrong I want to know. -cheers

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/636301523744591872

  • ( Funny that I never thought people would use my name, but just refer to “Proper

    ( Funny that I never thought people would use my name, but just refer to “Propertarainism”. Stupid of me I guess. )

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 10:45:00 UTC

  • Q&A: ARE DOOLITTLE’S ETHICS OBJECTIVE? AND ARE THEY NORMATIVE OR DESCRIPTIVE? (f

    Q&A: ARE DOOLITTLE’S ETHICS OBJECTIVE? AND ARE THEY NORMATIVE OR DESCRIPTIVE?

    (from reddit)

    PERSON’S REPLY

    —‘Doolittle’s ethics are descriptive’— AND —‘his morality is objective’—

    CURT’S RESPONSE

    Understanding this requires understanding three concepts:

    1) The necessity of preserving the disproportionate rewards of cooperation, by preserving the incentive to cooperate, by suppression of the imposition of costs, that would eliminate the incentive to cooperate – is purely objective. Humans instinctually evolved to disproportionately retaliate against ‘cheaters’ for this reason – those proto-humans who didn’t are gone, and those who did survived.

    2) Local rents (imposed costs), normative exchanges (norms), evolve in every society (myths, rituals, norms). Some of which are neutral (attending rituals), some of which are objectively moral (caring for orphans of relations) and some of which are objectively immoral (slavery,and its many lighter variants.)

    3) However, whenever there is a conflict between individuals or groups with different norms (contracts moral and immoral), all such conflicts are objectively decidable between them. In other words, groups may construct whatever internal contracts that they choose to, but between groups those contracts do not apply – only objective morality does: the non-imposition of costs stated as the limit of transfers to productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of unproductive, uninformed, unwarranted transfer by externality.

    So this definition of morality is **descriptive** in that it is universally demonstrated by humans as retaliation against thieves, and as groups as disproportionate retaliation against ‘cheaters’; correspondent with demands of evolutionary biology; correspondent with logical necessity, provides universal decidability in matters of retaliation; is a sufficient basis for universal law of conflict resolution (and loosely reflects the history of the western common law); and therefore is a sufficient basis for eliminating demand for an authority to render discretionary judgments in the absence of such decidability.

    Curt Doolittle, The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv Ukraine)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 10:31:00 UTC

  • Q&A: DOOLITTLE: CAN TWO SETS OF MORALS BE “RIGHT”? (from reddit) USER STRAY ASKS

    Q&A: DOOLITTLE: CAN TWO SETS OF MORALS BE “RIGHT”?

    (from reddit)

    USER STRAY ASKS

    —“So is it possible for two distinct sets of morals to be “right”?—

    USER CHUCK REPLIES

    —“Well according to Curt, probably no, because he says that morality is absolute. But (and this is probably what you mean) two distinct strategies (to use his language) could both be “right”, i.e. “moral”. However one might be more “moral” than the other, depending on its ability to promote the end. For example. As such, we can measure whether some cultures are more moral than others, by measuring the degree of suppression of parasitism (free riding) that is suppressed by law and norm. Ultimately I could be wrong about all of this. It would be best for someone who knows Curt’s work better to explain it, perhaps even Curt himself.”—

    CURT REPLIES

    I think you’ve done a great job really. I can add minor clarity.

    1) We may prefer different ends, but we can still cooperate voluntarily upon means. Then we discover at the conclusion which was right or not. This is the secret of the market. My work on politics is to create a market for commons (goods that cannot be privatized) rather than the monopoly means of production of commons we have under democracy. This lets us produce commons that compete if we want, but cooperate on their production. (In Seattle the train vs monorail debate was nonsense: do both.)

    2) our individual and group strategies may consist of a combination of objectively moral and immoral preferences. within group these differences are resolvable by contractual means. Across group they are resolvable by objective means.

    3) if we are not engaging in cooperation then morality has no meaning, since morality is merely the necessity of preservation of cooperation. In other words, when we resort to preying upon one another we have abandoned morality. In practice humans rarely do this. We actually engage in punishment in an attempt to restore cooperation.

    Mobs are scary things. Outliers are scary things. That is why we kill off people that make us nervous in group and out-group.

    That’s why ancapism never works. The only people for whom it is rational to join such a polity over another with greater legal coverage has historically been slavery, piracy, black marketing, or some financial equivalent. And the reason these groups dont’ exist is because we exterminate them as parasites.

    Its the same reason we punish animal cruelty. “People who do that kind of thing are f—ing dangerous to us. That kid who mows over a kitten is destined to be a serial killer.” etc. The ancap is destined to engage in parasitism. Why? well, why else would he choose a low trust legal code over a high trust legal code?

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv Ukraine)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 10:25:00 UTC

  • DOOLITTLE ON NIETZSCHE’s HERD (from reddit) QUESTION —I’ve read a little of Do

    DOOLITTLE ON NIETZSCHE’s HERD

    (from reddit)

    QUESTION

    —I’ve read a little of Doolittle(but not much), but I’m very perplexed how it isn’t the herd described according to Nietzsche? Or is this a way of directing the herd to be productive?—

    ANSWER

    (Nietzsche is justifiably rebelling against norms, particularly the church, and various other traditional bits that inhibit innovation and suppress achieving our ultimate potential. He is not himself attempting to define the basis for law sufficiently that resolution of disputes is possible regardless of norm. He offers a criticism and an aspiration. I am though. I offer a solution in the form of institutions.

    This is a very complex topic. Nietzsche writes as a german continental. While for some people this kind of loaded and framed argument helps with understanding via empathic reaction, and it’s somewhat poetic, it is very hard to turn it into scientific and therefore contemporary language. Conversely, I’m writing largely in operational language meaning anglo scientific language, and it’s very tedious and doesn’t have any emotional breadcrumbs, precisely so that I don’t load and frame it the way he does. And I don’t because that loading and framing is why the germans and the cosmopolitans failed to solve the problem of social science, and conversely, that kind of loading and framing is how the neocons, socialists, rothbard and mises, and the postmodernists that followed them created the worlds second great deceit after monotheism: pseudo-rational and pseudo-scientific loading, framing and overloading as a means of using suggestion to appeal to our pathological altruism. The lie worked for Abraham and Zoroaster, it worked for plato, Peter and Paul, it worked for Kant, Freud, Marx, Boaz, Cantor, Mises, and Rothbard, Rorty.. So how do I prevent another era of even more sophisticated lies with which to attack the vulnerability of the west: our high trust and pathological altruism? I do it by defining the method by which we apply science to moral questions. Hence testimonialism and Propertarianism. Science does not tell us what is true, it tells us only what survives tests of falsehood. Propertarianism and testimonialism do not tell us what is true, they tell us only what survives tests of moral falsehood.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine (L’viv Ukraine)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 10:18:00 UTC