Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • MUST READ – MARXISM AND GERMANY’S POSITION IN THE WORLD

    http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/what-fall-wall-did-not-change#axzz3IhjU4BZDSTRATFOR – MUST READ – MARXISM AND GERMANY’S POSITION IN THE WORLD

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 07:22:00 UTC

  • POPPER, HAYEK, HOPPE, BROUWER, BRIDGMAN, POINCARÉ – The` Least Wrong Philosopher

    POPPER, HAYEK, HOPPE, BROUWER, BRIDGMAN, POINCARÉ – The` Least Wrong Philosophers.

    Dragging Germans and Cosmopolitans out of the well of authoritarianism.

    For my purposes, Popper and Hayek are just the best thinkers to build upon, because they’re the least wrong. Hoppe isn’t important so much for what he has said but how he has taught us to say anything we wish to say at all. And whether he likes it or not (I don’t much care are this point) my work is a continuation of his – dragging it out of the absurd primitivism of cosmopolitan and german rationalism, kicking and screaming all the way. I think that, as of yesterday, I was able to drag Popper out of the cosmopolitan tradition as well. Laundering him of his cultural habits.

    THE FORMULA

    If you haven’t solved morality you need authority. But if you have solved morality you don’t need authority. I solved morality and therefore I don’t need authority: there is no difference in morality and property other than the scope of morality that the community is willing and able to enforce. Conversely, the less morality that people are wiling and able to enforce, the more people will demand for an authoritarian government to either impose an arbitrary moral standard, or impose sufficient order that retaliation for immoral and unethical actions is prohibited.

    As such the primary determinant of whether a polity can obtain liberty under rule of law is determined by the difference between the rate of adaptation of the legal code and the rate of change in the accumulated forms of property demonstrated by the populace for use in their reproduction and therefore production.

    The reason the west was able to evolve then, faster than all other civilizations, both times that it managed to escape eastern mysticism, is because the rule of law, judges and the jury can produce adaptation faster than other cultural methods of adaptation.

    (pretty cool really)

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    de.aristocratia at gmail.com

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 07:00:00 UTC

  • Kirill and I came up with what is sure to be another nice patent yesterday. (I h

    Kirill and I came up with what is sure to be another nice patent yesterday.

    (I have lost count.)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 06:44:00 UTC

  • COMPETE WITH TRUTH, FAMILY STRUCTURE, RATES OF REPRODUCTION, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/?p=6032WE COMPETE WITH TRUTH, FAMILY STRUCTURE, RATES OF REPRODUCTION, AND PROPERTY RIGHTS

    (reposted from march, 2013)

    The lesson I am learning from this is that living in a prosperous society is not necessarily an evolutionary advantage – it appears to be a disadvantage.

    Unless you wall out the rest of the world, that is.

    Swiss do it mostly right.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 06:44:00 UTC

  • FORGE LIFE BY YOUR WILL. I just figured out that I’m a year older than I thought

    FORGE LIFE BY YOUR WILL.

    I just figured out that I’m a year older than I thought, and that I’m eligible for senior citizen benefits. 🙂

    Given that I live like the average 25 year old – that is an absurdly ironic statement about the nature of our assumptions of our working lives.

    As far as I know, I’m just on chapter four of my life. I am *just getting started*.

    Life is something you forge by your will, or is forged by accident in the absence of our will.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 06:42:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIAN CANON (worth repeating)

    http://www.propertarianism.com/?p=7206THE PROPERTARIAN CANON

    (worth repeating)

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 06:36:00 UTC

  • LEGITIMACY PROBLEM I MUST DEAL WITH a) the fact that I’m capturing western civil

    LEGITIMACY PROBLEM I MUST DEAL WITH

    a) the fact that I’m capturing western civilization’s dependence upon objective truth telling at high personal cost – heroism: sacrificial contribution to the commons in exchange for status and remembrance.

    b) the fact that I’m doing this to demonstrate the basis for the scope of rights under rule of law necessary for liberty – despite that liberty is a minority desire.

    c) that in doing so I have created a general rule for the analysis of all political systems, and construction of all political systems, under that universal rule of law.

    d) that at the same time I am advocating for my ‘tribe’ – kin selection – or at least that all tribal aristocracies practice kin selection while cooperating, collaborating, working, and allying, with other aristocrats also engaging in kin selection.

    And therefore that the work is suspect.

    Well, of course al political theory is suspect. But that places no limits on Propertarianism, only on aristocratic egalitarianism that is constructed via Propertarianism. And even then, only whether you agree with kin selection (eugenic man) or whether you seek to defeat it (dysgenic man).

    I will have to struggle with this problem a bit I think. Once I have the ability to conduct anti-liar arguments I think I will have done it. There is a general rule hidden in that work that I haven’t found, but I intuit that it’s there.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 05:07:00 UTC

  • THE ADVANTAGE OF LIE-THEORIES (UNTRUTHFUL THEORIES) Lie-theories can accumulate

    THE ADVANTAGE OF LIE-THEORIES (UNTRUTHFUL THEORIES)

    Lie-theories can accumulate references, quotes, citations, recommendations, and advocacy, more cheaply and easily that truthful-theories. And they do.

    It is more advantageous, and cheaper to lie, than to speak the truth. Just as it is more advantageous to commit fraud than it is to trade with the fully informed. just as it is more advantageous to work for the state, than in the market. Just as it is more advantageous to conquer than to trade.

    Free riding is always more advantageous to one party than another. But it is less advantageous to a polity.

    This is why polities matter – without them, morality is not in anyone’s interest. Together, as a polity, morality is in *nearly* everyone’s interest, if not in every single soul’s interest. Conquerors, oligarchs, and their dependents are the ones who benefit least from morality.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 04:42:00 UTC

  • THE NEXT PROBLEM TO SOLVE: the habituation of untruthful speech. I think I may y

    THE NEXT PROBLEM TO SOLVE: the habituation of untruthful speech.

    I think I may yet find research value in Internet debate. Because I have experimented with the assumption that I cannot determine whether an individual is dishonest or not, rather than whether we can get away with a statement, but I am still struggling with it.

    How do I change the structure of argument so that the presumption is one of deception and error rather than one of error ant the possibility of truth? How do I raise the requirement for moral speech such that immoral speech is not possible.?

    The vulnerability in modern discourse is that it relies on western medieval assumptions that both parties are honest or at least honest even if they are vectors for lies.

    We evolved debate by putting away our weapons and our status during the debate. Under the assumption once we exited the debate a dishonest man might be killed.

    Meaning: He must warranty his words with his life.

    We slowly converted this behavior into a softer norm. But the duel persisted until recently – and it appears to have had severe consequences.

    The cosmopolitans and the Germans revoked this constraint.

    And the cosmopolitan virus of deception was successful only because of it : we retain the softer norm, but eliminated the warranty.

    The cosmopolitans violate the softer norm with impunity. And the consequence is the loss of the norm of truth telling that we developed over more than 5,000 years.

    This was only possible because we valued the technical knowledge distributed by printing so highly that we have speech a little license.

    Then when the new cheaper media hit, it was no longer possible for an individual to hold a speaker accountable for his words.

    They then user new media to saturate – overload – us with lies.

    Thus turning out altruism and trust from a strength to a vulnerability.

    How do I conduct arguments that force the other to speak truthfully without exiting argument and applying violence?

    How do we restore truth telling unless by treating the normative commons as paid-in capital? (Which it is.)

    I will have to call a lot of people liars to figure that out.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 04:21:00 UTC

  • THERE WE GO – CLOSE TO FINAL –“Propertarianism is a formal logic of morality, e

    THERE WE GO – CLOSE TO FINAL

    –“Propertarianism is a formal logic of morality, ethics and politics – and the necessary basis for a non-arbitrary, value-independent, universal, body of law; upon which any and all political orders can be constructed, and with which all questions of morality, ethics and politics can be commensurably compared and all such propositions decided.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2014-11-11 02:44:00 UTC