Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • What you CAN criticize

    [L]ook nitwits. You can try hard to criticize propertarianism. And you’re going to fail. I promise. It’s not gonna happen. That you don’t know this yet is just a matter of time. It is what it is. What you can criticize is: 1) the PRACTICAL possibility of sufficient power to produce a constitutional order making use of it in law. 2) the POLICIES I’ve recommended for the restoration of the middle class at the expense of the financial, political, academic, and media classes. 3) the PREFERENCE of some alternative order that is NOT dependent upon natural law, but some other set of rules. To engage in any of those criticisms you must produce one of the following:

    a) some sort of argument that a few hundred thousand men can’t disrupt cooperative velocity in all its forms sufficiently to bring the government to the negotiating table.

    b) some set of arguments that these are not already the general beliefs and wants of the populace (other than voluntary disassociation).

    c) that you can produce a recipe for the construction of an alternative order by equally operational means. You can criticize it. So do it. Or realize you can’t and do us a favor of not wasting our time.

  • Eric Orwoll says followers of propertarianism are “losers”

    Eric Orwoll says followers of propertarianism are “losers”.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-24 15:19:00 UTC

  • Look nitwits. You can try hard to criticize propertarianism. And you’re going to

    Look nitwits. You can try hard to criticize propertarianism. And you’re going to fail. I promise. It’s not gonna happen. That you don’t know this yet is just a matter of time. It is what it is.

    What you can criticize is:

    1) the PRACTICAL possibility of sufficient power to produce a constitutional order making use of it in law.

    2) the POLICIES I’ve recommended for the restoration of the middle class at the expense of the financial, political, academic, and media classes.

    3) the PREFERENCE of some alternative order that is NOT dependent upon natural law, but some other set of rules.

    To engage in any of those criticisms you must produce one of the following:

    a) some sort of argument that a few hundred thousand men can’t disrupt cooperative velocity in all its forms sufficiently to bring the government to the negotiating table.

    b) some set of arguments that these are not already the general beliefs and wants of the populace (other than voluntary disassociation).

    c) that you can produce a recipe for the construction of an alternative order by equally operational means.

    You can criticize it.

    So do it.

    Or realize you can’t and do us a favor of not wasting our time.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-24 15:18:00 UTC

  • “IF YOU WON’T FIGHT YOU DON’T MATTER” (orwoll’s latest shot) OK. This is rather

    “IF YOU WON’T FIGHT YOU DON’T MATTER”

    (orwoll’s latest shot)

    OK. This is rather silly. Here is your entire argument:

    “I don’t think it’s gonna work.

    The government is scary.

    I don’t wanna take the risk.

    I don’t want you guys to take the risk.

    There won’t be enough of you to take the risk.

    I don’t care about my people or the future just the present.

    I’m gonna pretend that christ will save me.

    I don’t understand your stuff but I’m gonna call you a cult (religious) leader – even if I would’t call marxists, postmodernists, feminists, cults but philosophical movements.

    I don’t understand the policy demands, or the changes to the constitution and the laws and the practical results that they would produce.

    I wanna do nothing – just like we’ve been doing.”

    You don’t offer anything to counter the epistemology, formal law, the constitution changes, or the set of policies.

    you only say “I dunno but I am ignorant and scared and I don’t want anything to do with it.”

    Which I agree with. Because you don’t matter.

    You can thank us if we are successful.

    And virtue signal yourself if we are not.

    And unless you are going to offer something substantive this is not worth my time. So let’s run a test: Let’s see how everything plays out. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-24 15:08:00 UTC

  • “The solution is for us to stop being reasonable. Stop compromising and start be

    —“The solution is for us to stop being reasonable. Stop compromising and start being intolerant and objective. The most intolerant win, and that needs to be us. Propertarianism gives us the tools to be totally intolerant and objective in our demands. This is the reason we are the Winning Right.”–Noah J Revoy

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-24 14:21:00 UTC

  • He works extremely hard. He produces a lot of content. He researches his subject

    He works extremely hard. He produces a lot of content. He researches his subjects and educates. He avoids third rails. Philosopher? Well, not so much. Educator? The best currently working online.

    Nick (all) where is he ‘stuck’ and how could I unstick him?

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-24 11:36:52 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088400235402063873

    Reply addressees: @Nicks_Reason @Sawraw821 @TrueDilTom @StefanMolyneux

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088357447234838528

    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/1088357447234838528

  • If JF wants us on, I”m sure we would do it. I’ve been on twice. Eli is a very pe

    If JF wants us on, I”m sure we would do it. I’ve been on twice. Eli is a very personable fellow and very accessible, and perhaps the best of us at the economics of cooperation (and non).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-24 11:20:09 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088396030163542016

    Reply addressees: @TonyGuster @JFGariepy @MartianHoplite

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/996828987333619712

    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/996828987333619712

  • FOR LURKERS…. by Dominic DeLuca For the lurkers who might feel intellectually

    FOR LURKERS….

    by Dominic DeLuca

    For the lurkers who might feel intellectually intimidated by Curt’s writing style or content, just ask for clarification if there’s something you don’t understand. It’s something that you should use to your advantage, considering that most people who produce content like this are nowhere near as accessible as he is.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-24 01:01:00 UTC

  • FROM THE “OUCH” COMEBACKS DEPARTMENT by Mike Sheppard —-“Creating life require

    FROM THE “OUCH” COMEBACKS DEPARTMENT
    by Mike Sheppard

    —-“Creating life requires a Male orgasm, but not a female one. If God doesn’t give a shi-t, why should I?”—

    ( CD: I observe the ‘sack reciprocity’ rule. Works for me. But … um…. Yeah, damn…. ouch. )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 20:45:45 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1088175979636449297

  • FROM THE “OUCH” COMEBACKS DEPARTMENT by Mike Sheppard —-“Creating life require

    FROM THE “OUCH” COMEBACKS DEPARTMENT

    by Mike Sheppard

    —-“Creating life requires a Male orgasm, but not a female one. If God doesn’t give a shi-t, why should I?”—

    ( CD: I observe the ‘sack reciprocity’ rule. Works for me. But … um…. Yeah, damn…. ouch. )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-23 15:45:00 UTC