Curt Doolittle

Category: Civilization, History, and Anthropology

  • Untitled

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2479271/1-000-years-invaded-need-Norman-like-Darcy-Percy-ahead.html

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-24 18:24:00 UTC

  • Love your tribe. It doesn’t matter what tribe it is. If you don’t love your trib

    Love your tribe. It doesn’t matter what tribe it is. If you don’t love your tribe then how can anyone trust you, inside or tribe or out?

    Any tribe that doesn’t love itself first, always has been and always will be, conquered by tribes that do. It’s just math.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-22 07:57:00 UTC

  • SUPPRESSING KIN NETWORKS : CHINA VS NORTHERN EUROPE Whereas the Chinese destroye

    SUPPRESSING KIN NETWORKS : CHINA VS NORTHERN EUROPE

    Whereas the Chinese destroyed the kin networks and nobility by forcible property redistribution and force of arms.

    The european church did it by banning cousin marriage and granting women property rights.

    Chinas history is driven entirely by war-making. And the enslavement of the population.

    The state is a vehicle for war.

    Private arms are the only means if preventing the war-making state.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-21 00:39:00 UTC

  • THE UNNATURAL NATURE OF ANGLO EXCEPTIONALISM “The conceit of our era is to assum

    THE UNNATURAL NATURE OF ANGLO EXCEPTIONALISM

    “The conceit of our era is to assume that these ideals are somehow the natural condition of an advanced society—that all nations will get around to them once they become rich enough and educated enough. In fact, these ideals were developed overwhelmingly in the language in which you are reading these words. You don’t have to go back very far to find a time when freedom under the law was more or less confined to the Anglosphere: the community of English-speaking democracies.” – Daniel Hannan

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-16 12:46:00 UTC

  • THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT The enlightenment mythos was almost as damagi

    THE MYTHOLOGY OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT

    The enlightenment mythos was almost as damaging was christianity. The greatest tragedy in human history may have been the christianization of Europe. The empirical side of the enlightenment was desperately needed to escape jewish mysticism that held us in ignorance for a millennia. Equality under the law, was important for the spread of commerce.

    But, just as moving people from christianity’s mysticism via Darwin was, let’s say … incomplete, it is very hard to move people from equality of property rights, equality under the law, and the equality of family interests, to what the socialists accomplished, which was equality of opportunity, material equality, inequality under the law, eradication of the common law by legislative law, and the destruction of the nuclear and absolute nuclear family in pursuit of ‘individualism’.

    We have a very hard time overturning this mythos. This mythos is even rampant in libertarianism. Libertarians are just as enamored of the fallacy of equality as are socialists. Libertarians want to retain meritocracy, sure. But most of us assume the same naive belief that if others ‘only understood’ they would adopt our system of values.

    But that’s just demonstrably false, both logically, praxeologically, and empirically. The majority of the world detests property rights and individualism.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-15 04:03:00 UTC

  • LACKING A ‘BOOK’ – YOU NEED A BOOK We benefit from the evolutionary structure of

    LACKING A ‘BOOK’ – YOU NEED A BOOK

    We benefit from the evolutionary structure of aristocracy. But we are harmed by by the loss of Druidic mythos, and the failure to articulate the necessary properties of the aristocratic egalitarian society

    EITHER THEFT IS IMMORAL OR IT ISN’T – THE MANNER OF THEFT OR THEFT?

    Is theft only wrong when it is intersubjectively verifiable? Or is theft wrong, in that it is destructive of cooperation, no matter whether it is visible or not? I think it is hard to convince people of anything but the latter.

    Is ownership determined by action? If ownership is determined by action then institutions that require respect of property are a commons that is paid for by action, in voluntary exchange.

    While I don’t want to, at this moment, write something very long to demonstrate this argument in detail, it is, as far as I know, an impenetrable criticism of rothbardian ethics, and a replacement of those ethics with propertarian ethics as the only LOGICALLY POSSIBLE definition of property rights. It is a replacement of the ethics of the ghetto with the ethics of the aristocracy.

    It is not possible to have an institution of property rights on the rothbardian model, because it is a praxeological disincentive to develop property rights.

    Aristocratic propertarianism is the replacement of rothbard’s individualistic me and my promise of violence with the egalitarian us and our promise of violence.

    It is the corporation. The corporeal-ization of property rights.

    It is not logical that individuals can create ‘possess’ property rights. One can demand them in exchange. But it takes a minimum of two people to create property rights, because they can only be obtained in exchange.

    ORIGINS

    Sitting in Church at the age of 12, I promised myself I would write that book. Yes, we have the (rather pitiful) book of Jerusalem, but Athens didn’t give us a book. Plato’s tried but his book is a catastrophe. Aristotle didn’t survive well enough for us enough to work with as “a book” – although it might be reconstructable in at least small parts. The Monarchies didn’t leave us a book. Although we could argue that Smith and Hume together made a pretty good pass at it democratizing it. Chivalry left us a book: arthurian legends. And I think the reason we don’t have a book, is that the church imposed its book – and that book wasn’t a very good one. Not as good as Aristotle’s would have been. That book, and the church, were a prohibition on writing the book of aristocratic egalitarianism. Albiet, the church is the OTHER HALF of aristocratic egalitarianism.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-13 02:07:00 UTC

  • end of racism

    http://www.aei-ideas.org/2013/11/dinesh-dsouza-on-race-in-america/the end of racism

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-06 21:07:00 UTC

  • THE MELTING POT THAT ISNT Data is data. Turns out that what we melt is purely sc

    THE MELTING POT THAT ISNT

    Data is data. Turns out that what we melt is purely scientific, legal, and commercial; and what doesn’t melt is family, morality, metaphysics, and therefore politics.

    Or, what I would describe in Propertarian terms, as “explicitly calculable” implicit knowledge vs “inexplicitly calculable” tacit knowledge.

    We can structure formal institutions only for a subset of knowledge.

    Myth, tradition, ritual, family, morals, ethics, and manners are something that can also be institutionalized.

    And that us the conservative vision: formal institutions are not enough.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-05 05:00:00 UTC

  • What is it about south american cultures that produces so many good libertarian

    What is it about south american cultures that produces so many good libertarian thinkers? De Soto is obvious and Spanish, but why is it that there are so many young libertarians from south america? And the quality of thought is exceptional. At least compared to americans. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2013-11-04 01:53:00 UTC

  • LOOKING LIKE CENTRAL AMERICA? Loving the commons is not common. It’s unique to P

    http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-pico-union-trash-20131029,0,73522.storyLA LOOKING LIKE CENTRAL AMERICA?

    Loving the commons is not common. It’s unique to Protestantism and the absolute nuclear family (ANF). Everyone else ruins the commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2013-10-29 09:12:00 UTC