Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • “Curt, have you considered writing your own material on violence, incremental su

    —“Curt, have you considered writing your own material on violence, incremental suppression and domestication in to a book?”—

    Long time followers know that I made my first draft in 06, another in 09/10, another in ’13, another last year 15/16, and that each time I draft it, I learn ‘what’s missing’. Last fall I couldn’t put my arms around it, but it was Agency. Right now, given Transcendence /Agency, I can’t find anything ‘that’s missing’.

    Also, every six months I get better at communicating the ideas and at present I feel pretty good, as long as I don’t have to cross too many sigma of iq. If I had launched the work before now I would have failed.

    Next, there are sort of three formats to publish in. One is a skeleton of the innovations. The second is the skeleton plus readings leaving interpretation of ‘voice’ up to the reader. The third is more ‘traditional’ educational form, where you walk the reader through it, with your own voice.

    The skeleton is easily published now as a set of definitions, series, and explanations, culminating in a constitution of natural law.

    I can augment this skeleton with selected short readings of my own on the application of that law; and with selected writings from history; and with selected historical literature. Producing a more traditional ‘law’. One that is absent my ‘voice’. But can take the place of wisdom literature that is durable over time.

    And then to produce a class online that performs the teaching function, and that includes my voice. This will be less durable over time, since we must speak in different language to the audience in every generation.

    Anyone with a little effort can grasp the skeleton from the Overview readings. I know becuase others have. And I don’t think those ideas are terribly difficult – what is difficult is replacing everyone’s existing ‘framing’, that includes justificationism, majoritarianism, and persuasion, rather than criticism, reciprocity, and rule. Retraining your mind, if you are not naturally ‘neutral’ (aspie) is pretty difficult.

    I mean, ratio-empirical-reciprocal-operational-and-fully-accounted, is not difficult to separate ratio-empiricism-correlative is not difficult to separate from rational-and-reasonable, which is not difficult to separate from mythical-supernormal, whch is not difficult to separate from religous-supernatural.

    What is hard is transitioning people from a lower method of truth testing requiring less information, to a higher method of truth testing requiring more information.

    Every time we do it, we encounter vast resistance.

    Western civilization needs a small number of us to form the counter revolution against the frankfurt school and restore the western ‘scientific’ civilization.

    So that’s what I’m looking for. Yet, as a group, we need this book. We need Natural Law of Sovereign Men: the Cult, Philosophy, Law, and Science, of Western Civilization. The basis from which all our sub-disciplines evolved.

    It’s a very simple set of rules that ask us to live in correspondence with reality, since by acting in correspondence with reality we obtain an advantage over all those others who do not so much conform to reality.

    And simply because we will evolve all aspects of our society faster than all other societies if we do.

    Which is what we have done.

    IN CLOSING

    So I am again trying to produce another draft that is this time, shortest of all, and is closest to the literary model put forth in the 48 Laws of Power, and which is sufficiently structured as wisdom literature that it does not ‘decay’ with the generation that it was first written for.

    I have a very hard time with this. And it makes me appreciate spinoza, who worked by the same principle, toward different ends.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-04-22 09:11:00 UTC

  • Joel Davis on Deflationary Government

    By John Dow The enforcers (sovereigns) produce law, and as a consequence, markets. The taxpayers (subjects) use the markets, under the law, as consumers of market goods, services, and information. I would advocate a constitution as a contract of mutually enforced recipriocity (justice) between enforcers. I would advocate the enforcers appoint a supreme justice (or supreme court of justices) as supreme authorities on the application of the constitution. I would advocate the enforcers appoint a governor-general (president) as supreme commander (chief executive) of the enforcers. And, I would advocate a senate to represent them in negotiations with other sovereigns (foreign policy), and with their customers (taxpayers) who I would advocate have their own house of representatives they elect to negotiate on their behalf with the enforcer elected senate (economic policy).

  • Joel Davis on Deflationary Government

    By John Dow The enforcers (sovereigns) produce law, and as a consequence, markets. The taxpayers (subjects) use the markets, under the law, as consumers of market goods, services, and information. I would advocate a constitution as a contract of mutually enforced recipriocity (justice) between enforcers. I would advocate the enforcers appoint a supreme justice (or supreme court of justices) as supreme authorities on the application of the constitution. I would advocate the enforcers appoint a governor-general (president) as supreme commander (chief executive) of the enforcers. And, I would advocate a senate to represent them in negotiations with other sovereigns (foreign policy), and with their customers (taxpayers) who I would advocate have their own house of representatives they elect to negotiate on their behalf with the enforcer elected senate (economic policy).

  • The Literature of “Growing Up”

    Literature of Growing Up: Rothbard, Friedman, Sowell, Hayek. (and Me) Grownups should ignore Rothbard. He’s talking in children’s stories. Parables. Silly stuff. If you wanna read teenager stories read Friedman. He is as close to correct as I know how to get. If you wanna read junior college stories read Sowell. He talks about the rest of the society not just the economy. If you want to read university stories read hayek. He talks about civilizations. If you want post-graduate work, you’re gonna have to wait for me, ’cause it’s gonna take that to make conservatism and libertarianism into a persuasive science rather than a moral literature.

  • The Literature of “Growing Up”

    Literature of Growing Up: Rothbard, Friedman, Sowell, Hayek. (and Me) Grownups should ignore Rothbard. He’s talking in children’s stories. Parables. Silly stuff. If you wanna read teenager stories read Friedman. He is as close to correct as I know how to get. If you wanna read junior college stories read Sowell. He talks about the rest of the society not just the economy. If you want to read university stories read hayek. He talks about civilizations. If you want post-graduate work, you’re gonna have to wait for me, ’cause it’s gonna take that to make conservatism and libertarianism into a persuasive science rather than a moral literature.

  • Another Useful Idiot – Rothbardian Flavor

    ANOTHER USEFUL ROTHBARDIAN IDIOT —“> asserts that there can never be a social order based on private property norms > engages in argumentation, thereby demonstrating a preference for and participation in a libertarian social order based on private property norms You wrote 10 paragraphs of performative contradiction, but at least you felt cool doing it.”—-Jared Howe Interesting how you’d even imagine that such a statement wasn’t anything but profoundly stupid. (Not sure I can provide a complete analysis of the fraud of marxist argumentation ethics without writing a whole book but lets at least lay down the outline and show how ridiculous you are – and how useful, educated but unintelligent, idiots are in the cause against possible liberty: Aristocratic Sovereignty) 1) All humans argue (produce a series of statements for the purpose of persuasion: changing state of another’s behavior.) They argue with ignorance, error, bias, and deciet. They argue with contradictions. They argue with fallacies. They outright lie. 2) No humans exist in a rothbardian political, social, familial, and personal order wherein the definition and scope of property is limited to physical, intersubjectively verifiable property. 3) An insignificant portion of populations STATES a preference for a rothbardian order. NO portion of ANY polity DEMONSTRATES a preference for a rothbardian order. Why? It is impossible to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the rational construction of a rothbardian order. It does not appear to be able to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the migration of such an order. It appears only possible that a tribal and migratory polity parasitically living off the territorial defenses and juridciald efenses of some other order, might employ this strategy as an ethical basis. Or for separate states to rely upon this form of non-normative, separatist ethics. And, this is what we find. That Rothbardianism is rhetorically similar to international law limited by violence, rather than national law, limited by cooperation. Ergo: 3) engaging in argumentation (Rationalism) cannot demonstrate a preference for, or possibility of, a rothbardian (purely private property) social order. In fact, argumentation then demonstrates a preference for non-rothbardian social orders. In fact, as I argue, rationalism was invented as an extension of pilpul > theological interpretation > legal interpretation, specifically as a method of avoiding empirical evidence – ie: for lying. (ie: Kant/Marx/Rothbart/hoppe). Argumentation ethics then, by extension of this method, and refusal to use the operational and empeirical methods, demonstrates how easy it is to use rationalism to lie. 4) The reason being that people engage in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propagandism, and deceit – and they must, because argumentation is itself a process of trades consisting of names (categories), properties, relations, values: a negotiation on meaning, and value. Argument, unlike mathematics, does not consists of axioms, but of theories, and hypotheses. 5) In fact, by the addition of full accounting, and productivity, warranty, and operational definitions to argument (categorical consistency, internal consistency, external consistency and reciprocity: voluntary exchange) we can dramatically improve the truth content of negotiations, producing something much closer to a discourse using laws (not axioms), even if it increases the cost of negotiating, heavily, such that truthful negotiation (argument) is closer to “possible”. You see, people do not engage in axiomatic argument, (truth) they engage in hypothetical negotiation (persuasion). Because the rarely if ever possess the information, intellectual agency, and rhetorical technology (or time for that matter) to engage in anything else. Argumentation is evidentially self-refuting, if we ourselves argue that argument consists of axiomatic and truthful propositions, rather than a negotiation on meaning and value. The means by which we force negotiations (ignorance, error bias and deceit) into something close to argumentation, is by the organized application of violence to demand truthful negotiations and attempt to improve argument from fraud into truth telling; and by doing so create a high trust, and therefore competitively profitable polity (market). The means by which we force negotiations (trades) closer to argument (truths), is through the organized threat of and application of violence prior to the negotiation (denial of violence, theft, and falsehood), during the negotiation (demand for truthfulness), and after the negotiation (violence by dispute resolution). People engage in ignorance, error, bias and lie. If it isn’t clear, I”m not negotiating, I’m threatening violence so that non-parasitic negotiation with long term returns can be brought into existence, by denying you the opportunity for parasitism that you seek. Otherwise I prefer violence, theft, or fraud, to parasitically exploit you. Because it is only under full reciprocity that you are worth not preying upon.

  • Another Useful Idiot – Rothbardian Flavor

    ANOTHER USEFUL ROTHBARDIAN IDIOT —“> asserts that there can never be a social order based on private property norms > engages in argumentation, thereby demonstrating a preference for and participation in a libertarian social order based on private property norms You wrote 10 paragraphs of performative contradiction, but at least you felt cool doing it.”—-Jared Howe Interesting how you’d even imagine that such a statement wasn’t anything but profoundly stupid. (Not sure I can provide a complete analysis of the fraud of marxist argumentation ethics without writing a whole book but lets at least lay down the outline and show how ridiculous you are – and how useful, educated but unintelligent, idiots are in the cause against possible liberty: Aristocratic Sovereignty) 1) All humans argue (produce a series of statements for the purpose of persuasion: changing state of another’s behavior.) They argue with ignorance, error, bias, and deciet. They argue with contradictions. They argue with fallacies. They outright lie. 2) No humans exist in a rothbardian political, social, familial, and personal order wherein the definition and scope of property is limited to physical, intersubjectively verifiable property. 3) An insignificant portion of populations STATES a preference for a rothbardian order. NO portion of ANY polity DEMONSTRATES a preference for a rothbardian order. Why? It is impossible to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the rational construction of a rothbardian order. It does not appear to be able to praxeologically (operationally) argue for the migration of such an order. It appears only possible that a tribal and migratory polity parasitically living off the territorial defenses and juridciald efenses of some other order, might employ this strategy as an ethical basis. Or for separate states to rely upon this form of non-normative, separatist ethics. And, this is what we find. That Rothbardianism is rhetorically similar to international law limited by violence, rather than national law, limited by cooperation. Ergo: 3) engaging in argumentation (Rationalism) cannot demonstrate a preference for, or possibility of, a rothbardian (purely private property) social order. In fact, argumentation then demonstrates a preference for non-rothbardian social orders. In fact, as I argue, rationalism was invented as an extension of pilpul > theological interpretation > legal interpretation, specifically as a method of avoiding empirical evidence – ie: for lying. (ie: Kant/Marx/Rothbart/hoppe). Argumentation ethics then, by extension of this method, and refusal to use the operational and empeirical methods, demonstrates how easy it is to use rationalism to lie. 4) The reason being that people engage in ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, propagandism, and deceit – and they must, because argumentation is itself a process of trades consisting of names (categories), properties, relations, values: a negotiation on meaning, and value. Argument, unlike mathematics, does not consists of axioms, but of theories, and hypotheses. 5) In fact, by the addition of full accounting, and productivity, warranty, and operational definitions to argument (categorical consistency, internal consistency, external consistency and reciprocity: voluntary exchange) we can dramatically improve the truth content of negotiations, producing something much closer to a discourse using laws (not axioms), even if it increases the cost of negotiating, heavily, such that truthful negotiation (argument) is closer to “possible”. You see, people do not engage in axiomatic argument, (truth) they engage in hypothetical negotiation (persuasion). Because the rarely if ever possess the information, intellectual agency, and rhetorical technology (or time for that matter) to engage in anything else. Argumentation is evidentially self-refuting, if we ourselves argue that argument consists of axiomatic and truthful propositions, rather than a negotiation on meaning and value. The means by which we force negotiations (ignorance, error bias and deceit) into something close to argumentation, is by the organized application of violence to demand truthful negotiations and attempt to improve argument from fraud into truth telling; and by doing so create a high trust, and therefore competitively profitable polity (market). The means by which we force negotiations (trades) closer to argument (truths), is through the organized threat of and application of violence prior to the negotiation (denial of violence, theft, and falsehood), during the negotiation (demand for truthfulness), and after the negotiation (violence by dispute resolution). People engage in ignorance, error, bias and lie. If it isn’t clear, I”m not negotiating, I’m threatening violence so that non-parasitic negotiation with long term returns can be brought into existence, by denying you the opportunity for parasitism that you seek. Otherwise I prefer violence, theft, or fraud, to parasitically exploit you. Because it is only under full reciprocity that you are worth not preying upon.

  • Rothbardians Excel At Demonstrating The Evolution of Lying

    Apr 18, 2017 9:32am ROTHBARDIANS ARE EXCEPTIONAL AT DEMONSTRATING THE EVOLUTION OF LYING I love destroying Rothbardians. It’s…. it’s such a great way of showing the way that Pilpul > Scriptural Justification > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > and Lying by Rationalism > Lying by Pseudoscience, has evolved from the origins of scriptural monotheism until today. Wisdom Literature > Scriptural (Authoritarian) LIterature > Pilpul > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > Kantian Rationalism > Marxist Rationalism > Rothbardian Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudo-Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudoscience. THE EVOLUTION OF LYING

  • Rothbardians Excel At Demonstrating The Evolution of Lying

    Apr 18, 2017 9:32am ROTHBARDIANS ARE EXCEPTIONAL AT DEMONSTRATING THE EVOLUTION OF LYING I love destroying Rothbardians. It’s…. it’s such a great way of showing the way that Pilpul > Scriptural Justification > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > and Lying by Rationalism > Lying by Pseudoscience, has evolved from the origins of scriptural monotheism until today. Wisdom Literature > Scriptural (Authoritarian) LIterature > Pilpul > Hermeneutics > Legal Rationalism > Kantian Rationalism > Marxist Rationalism > Rothbardian Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudo-Rationalism > Postmodern Pseudoscience. THE EVOLUTION OF LYING

  • The Information Content of Violence

    by Eli Harman It’s an article of faith among many libertarians that violence, and particularly aggressive violence, is necessarily negative sum. Prices contain information and markets broker them (in a subjective utility maximising way.) Violence only short circuits that, disrupts markets, destroy price signals, and makes everyone worse off. But this is not correct. In the first place, market transactions aren’t necessarily positive sum. If they are fraudulent or create negative externalities for those not party, they can be negative sum. And in the second place, violence is itself a signal, and transmits information. A threat expresses a subjective evaluation just as an offer does in the marketplace. “Hey, don’t do that or we’re going to fight.” And the initiation of hostilities demonstrates the authenticity of that information just as a payment does in the marketplace. One undertakes real cost, and real risk, in resorting to violence. (In contrast, whining, and playing the victim DO NOT demonstrate the authenticity of grievances in the way that resorting to violence does, and so are liable and likely to prove negative sum, if indulged, just as theft is liable and likely to prove negative sum, in the marketplace, because it does not make a sufficient demonstration and exchange of value.) Markets and prices on the one hand, and violence and threats on the other, are both necessary components to a stable, functional, and efficient society and economy. To suppress either wholly in favor of the other, would be to forego the benefits they offer, and to pervert incentives towards destructive outcomes. No society which does either will be able to compete, long term, against one which makes a more sensible tradeoff between them, making best use of information supplied by both exchange and conflict. Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.