Curt Doolittle

Author: Curt Doolittle

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-07 10:23:00 UTC

  • While Paternalism (headmanship) has been universal, when insurance and gathering

    While Paternalism (headmanship) has been universal, when insurance and gathering were more important than productivity and warfare, matrilinealism seemed to determine what limited property was important (relations) and what inheritance and therefore ownership. But when productivity became more important than insurance, patrilinealism seemed to develop into the primary social order determining what increasingly complex property was important (livestock, territory, agrarian production, built capital). Now that women can seek rents via the state, we are seeing property return to communalism and men attempt to preserve their control over it.

    Without families, I do not yet understand how civilization can function any more than I can understand how an economy can function without prices and incentives.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-07 08:40:00 UTC

  • I just get comfortable again and Putin goes and starts insurrections in three ma

    I just get comfortable again and Putin goes and starts insurrections in three main cities so that he can have an excuse to ‘save’ the residents.

    Playbook continues.

    Dammit. Someone shoot that fking guy please.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 16:08:00 UTC

  • ARGUMENTATIVE METHODS Mythical (Allegorical) Psychological (Moral) Rational (Kan

    ARGUMENTATIVE METHODS

    Mythical (Allegorical)

    Psychological (Moral)

    Rational (Kantian)

    Historical ( analogical)

    Empirical (positivist)

    Ratio-empirical ( scientific )

    Descriptive (purely descriptive statements free of analogy).

    QUESTION:

    Which philosophers who advocate liberty rely on which argumentative methods?

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 12:06:00 UTC

  • COME HOME TO ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM – LEAVE THE GHETTO. I’m an aristocratic

    COME HOME TO ARISTOCRATIC EGALITARIANISM – LEAVE THE GHETTO.

    I’m an aristocratic egalitarian. I am willing to grant full spectrum Propertarian property rights to all who are equally willing to fight for it in word and deed to the best of their ability.

    That is the ancient source of liberty: the aristocratic egalitarianism of the indo-europeans.

    Libertarians from the Rothbardian movement are largely a collection of ‘pussy-tarians’, ‘coward-tarians’, ‘stupid-tarians’, ‘aspie-tarians’, ‘libertines’, and ‘dishonest-cheat-itarians’ who can be divided into two camps: those fooled by obscurantism, and those who are naturally liars, cheats, and dishonest.

    Ditch ghetto libertarianism as the immoral dishonest scheme that it is.

    Come home to aristocratic egalitarianism.

    Take liberty by force, for moral reasons, rather than beg for it for immoral reasons.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 05:19:00 UTC

  • LIBERTY IS NOT A PRODUCT OF PERMISSION, BUT OF CHOICE Without states how is libe

    LIBERTY IS NOT A PRODUCT OF PERMISSION, BUT OF CHOICE

    Without states how is liberty enforced?

    It’s enforced aristocratically: by violence under the ternary logic of cooperation: Null-violence, 0-boycott, 1-cooperation.

    If another individual desires property rights we grant them to one another in exchange for fighting to preserve those rights from all comers.

    *We grant that right regardless of state, country, nation, or boundary*.

    That is the origin and institution of aristocratic egalitarian liberty. Egalitarian meaning: “anyone who is willing to fight for property rights will be given property rights by all others in exchange.” And by contrast, those who do not demand property rights, will not fight for them, shall not be granted them.

    Everything else is masturbatory begging for permission by slaves.

    You cannot have liberty, and property, if you have it by permission. That statement would be illogical.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-06 05:09:00 UTC

  • WHERE LIBERTARIANS GO WRONG. Libertarians get lost in introspection. The central

    WHERE LIBERTARIANS GO WRONG.

    Libertarians get lost in introspection. The central problem of creating an anarchic society is fully articulating property rights such that they are possible to rationally adjudicate under the common law.

    It is this rational ability to adjudicate differences under the common law that makes possible ‘rule of law’. Without such rational articulation, rule by man’s discretion is necessary.

    The sufficiency of that articulated list of property is what determines if transaction costs are low enough that it’s rational for people to voluntarily join a polity in which plans can be made, and disputes can be resolved, according to that list of property rights.

    As I have written recently, libertarians (foolishly) discount these transaction costs because they tend to be above, and interact above, the threshold at which moral behavior is dominant.

    The NAP is either an insufficient test, or private property rights that are intersubjectively verifiable are an insufficient scope. Propertarianism extends property to that which people demonstrate they believe is their just property, and places the burden on the individuals with the greater knowledge. “Seller Beware”.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 14:56:00 UTC

  • A very, very sweet white wine. Rye crackers. Danish butter. Black caviar. Lightl

    A very, very sweet white wine.

    Rye crackers.

    Danish butter.

    Black caviar.

    Lightly carbonated water.

    Sigh.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 14:50:00 UTC

  • UNDER TERNARY LOGIC WE GET “SELLER BEWARE” –BINARY– Under binary logic (of arg

    UNDER TERNARY LOGIC WE GET “SELLER BEWARE”

    –BINARY–

    Under binary logic (of argumentation) we get “buyer beware”. (Rejection || Consent)

    REJECTION (binary 0)

    Ostracization from all opportunity for any exchange.

    Boycott of all exchanges.

    Rejection of exchange.

    CONSENT (binary 1)

    Restitution via court

    Voluntary, fully informed, warrantied exchange free of negative externality. (high trust, low friction, low opportunity cost)

    Voluntary exchange (low trust, high friction, high opportunity cost)

    –TERNARY–

    But under ternary logic we ‘seller beware’ (Rejection || Consent || Violence)

    VIOLENCE (ternary)

    Restitution via violence

    Transfer via violence.

    Conquer/Conquest/Enslavement

    High trust societies employ “seller beware”. “You are responsible for your actions”.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 10:03:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.themoscowtimes.com/article/497472.html

    Source date (UTC): 2014-04-05 09:30:00 UTC