Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • REALLY? It never seems to occur to journalists (or many other people) that LOADI

    http://www.salon.com/2017/01/15/dont-think-of-a-rampaging-elephant-linguist-george-lakoff-explains-how-the-democrats-helped-elect-trump/LIARS, REALLY?

    It never seems to occur to journalists (or many other people) that LOADING, FRAMING, OVERLOADING are forms of SUGGESTION ( which means LYING).

    There exists only one truthful form of political speech: cost. And one truthful objective: group evolutionary strategy (persistence.)

    So why does Lakoff (like Chomsky) (a) specialize in language, (b) advise people to use loading, framing, overloading, for the purpose of suggestion (lying) rather than arguments to the contribution to or cost to one’s group evolutionary strategy?

    THATS THE ISSUE: LYING TO OBSCURE THEFT.

    Why do conservatives favor Constitutionalism? Because it’s just a statement of Natural Law of cooperation: The demand for 1) Productive, 2) Fully Informed, 3) Warrantied (skin in the game), 4) Voluntary transfer, 5) limited to productive externality. In other words – the law against parasitism.

    Why do these people advance the violation of natural law consistently, and do so by means of obscurantist lying:

    KRUGMAN, DELONG, STEIGLITZ, LAKOFF, CHOMSKY.

    Group evolutionary strategy in action: lying.

    It’s not complicated.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 13:26:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle shared a post

    Curt Doolittle shared a post.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 21:44:00 UTC

  • (Archived response to Andy Curzon’s post) (1)”The world needs all kinds of minds

    (Archived response to Andy Curzon’s post)

    (1)”The world needs all kinds of minds” …. yes, that says it all.

    (2) Different kinds of minds value different means and ends. (Conversely, ‘we all need to think like this’ is an effort to create a monopoly in values where we need a market in values)

    (3) The world needs all kinds of disciplines(means and ends) for those minds to specialize in.

    (4) The world needs multiple economic models (production consumption) to provide opportunities for different minds – specialized and not.

    (5)The world needs multiple political models (commons construction) that vary according to the distribution of those minds – some with a bias toward collective production (early stage societies) and some with a bias toward voluntary commons production (late stage societies),

    (6) The world needs multiple countries/nation-states (markets) for the same reason.

    HOWEVER – these are all ‘positiva’ assertions by which search for opportunities of all kinds. How is cooperation possible between so many diverse forms of inquiry, choice, and production of generations, goods, services, information and commons? These are the ‘negativa’ propositions:

    (6) The world needs one language – one that corresponds most highly with truth, thereby reducing ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit. That language is TRUTH and the language of truth is science.

    7) the world needs one method of decidability in matters of conflict between these diverse polities – equally expressed in the language of truth. That method of decidability is non-imposition of costs against property in toto – that which we call ‘natural law’.

    9) And the world needs one method of decidability between preferences(policy): not to sink into dysgenia – which is the natural outcome of all orders that are not explicitly eugenic (west and east), and to transcend the beast man (which is the natural outcome of all orders that are explicitly eugenic.).

    This sequence provides decidability for the full scope of the initial proposition, from the individual to mankind.

    We can create a market for the positive that we do not know is good, by eliminating the market for that which we do know is bad: that which impedes individual opportunity, productive cooperation, and human transcendence.

    The more trial and error the better as long as one is risking (gambling) with his own purse.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-13 13:58:00 UTC

  • Joel Davis: —“By violence we may test our will against reality. By triumph we

    Joel Davis: —“By violence we may test our will against reality. By triumph we may manifest our will in reality. And we can argue about what is and what isn’t until we are blue in the face… Ultimately the test of whether your ideas can transform into reality will be whether you succeed or fail in overcoming that which resists it’s manifestation.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 22:35:00 UTC

  • TRUMP: CNN = FAKE NEWS ORGANIZATION (damn)

    TRUMP: CNN = FAKE NEWS ORGANIZATION

    (damn)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 16:34:00 UTC

  • Moritz Bierling: —“As Ely Harman has pointed out, violence is the “clearing” (

    Moritz Bierling: —“As Ely Harman has pointed out, violence is the “clearing” (or mechanism of validation) of negative values (limits). It is the most immediate and because it comes out of the most primal part of our brain, the reptilian brain, it has the highest and most honest information content of any action, and method of coercion. Which is also why the left tries so very hard to take away our instincts, our ability and willingness to act on information coming from organs other than the “rational” (justificationary) brain, and all means of interpersonal coordination not centrally controllable (ie. religion, myth, heroic acts, patriotism, national identity, etc).”—

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 16:33:00 UTC

  • Much of Propertarianism and Testimonialism evolved from my criticism of the pseu

    Much of Propertarianism and Testimonialism evolved from my criticism of the pseudoscience of Mises, the immoralism of Rothbard, and the Kantian/Marxist rationalism of Hoppe.

    I was trying to restate what I saw in Hoppe (a formal, operational, logic of human cooperation that could be stated as law), in scientific terms (an extension or completion of the scientific method)

    If you want to deeply understand the internals of propertarianism it is best achieved by reading through my work reforming JEWISH Austrian economics (mises/rothbard/hoppe) from pseudoscientific and pseudo-rational, to fully scientific and rational. (Reforming CHRISTIAN Austrian economics Menger is unnecessary since that corpus has already been added to the mainstream. Mises’ insight – praxeology as a test of reciprocity – has not.)

    I created a separate group to store those ideas as a set of posts (articles).

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/scientific.praxeology/permalink/750994611656577/

    If you work through this list (and it is work) you should have an historical context in which to understand Propertarianism.

    What you will not probably grasp is that NATURAL LAW (propertarianism) is the completion of the program started by the Aristotle and the Stoics, which is (contrary to christianity) the origin and cause of western civilization. Not that I had any idea. I just discovered that as I went along.

    But that’s another longer story.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 12:00:00 UTC

  • Philip Saunders hits a homer. —“Okay, I think I have a clearer idea of what yo

    Philip Saunders hits a homer.

    —“Okay, I think I have a clearer idea of what you’re saying. High trust, truth based polities will accelerate past polities which don’t uphold these standards. The law itself is boiled down to the point that most people can understand it, be held responsible for it, and enforce it. We also extend common law bans on commercial fraud to interpersonal fraud. So if you impose costs informationally, then you are culpable. is that Close?”—Philip Saunders

    More than close. Better said than I could say it. 🙂 Awesome.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 09:50:00 UTC

  • One of the most interesting transformations I’ve seen in Adam. Someone who has e

    One of the most interesting transformations I’ve seen in Adam. Someone who has experience and devoted himself to multiple systems of thought. And who advocates a very egalitarian world. Yet his emerging work is an elegant synthesis of scientific language and philosophy.

    Skye is also interesting because he can empathize with a host of philosophical frameworks the way most of us can empathize with different genres of literature. Although, I am still stuck with that negativa other than subjective intuition that philosophical aesthetes rely upon.

    Bierling consistently astounds me, and he seems to seek to strike the balance between mores and truth, and can conduct most arguments easily despite rather recent work. he has a public persona that’s genuine, insightful, and frankly, marketable. I feel very emotionally close to him because I have very similar moral sentiments.

    Josh Jeppeson is intersesting because he already bridged science and the aesthetic occult in his own life (which seems to be a common combination that I run across), and he, like many nietzcheans, feels the occult, and judges scientifically, and there is something fascinating in that positiva/negativa combination. I have learned a great deal from his criticism and some of my more recent insights are the result of trying to answer him.

    Berens is interesting in that he is so frighteningly good at constructing propertarian arguments that i am often humbled – he gives me something to aspire to. This is a very talented guy and I haven’t seen any of his development so I can’t comment on his transition.

    Ziavalov is much closer to my perspective, in that he is pretty rigidly scientific (something the russians have been excellent at developing at scale). I notice that our differences derive from my america distaste for conflict, and while I know nothing about him, his name suggests russian origin or influence. And he has that attitude toward conflict: ‘it is what it is, grow up’.

    I’ve long considered Eli and I partners even though we really just riff off each other. Eli takes a more ‘working class man’s view’ of things which i am sure he considers a compliment. But if you are an average person and want to learn Propertariaism (to which he is a major contributor), the price is time with Eli, and a few beers.

    I consider Butch a partner as well, and an advisor and he is better at explaining my position on many subjects than I am – those that relate to libertarian positions especially.

    I see Bill rapidly fulfilling this role as well, but against more philosophical and argumentative positions. Where James Berens would (like me) stomp on you, Bill tries to educate you.

    We have a lot of advocates … some of whom are dear friends to me, but who aren’t terribly interested in the formal work. That said that list is too long to include here.

    Curt Doolittle

    Bill Joslin

    Steve Pender

    Ulysses Aaron Cartwright

    Ivan Ilakovac

    Moritz Bierling

    Con Eli Khan

    Josh Jeppson

    Austyn Pember

    Lycurgus Lawgiver

    Nicholas Arthur Catton

    Arkan Nathanael

    Carlos Clark

    Ely Harman

    Joel Davis

    William Butchman

    James Augustus Berens

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-11 09:38:00 UTC

  • WHY REJECT AN OFFER OF DEBATE WITH A THEIST? —“You rejected his invitation to

    WHY REJECT AN OFFER OF DEBATE WITH A THEIST?

    —“You rejected his invitation to debate him on his podcast”—

    —“Yeah, what gives?”—

    —“please explain”—

    We can make excuses for justifying our desires by pursuit of, discovery of, choice of, and advocacy of, faith, or its equivalent in the supernatural, or the platonic, or the pseudorational, or the pseudoscientific. And we make those excuses in many ways.

    There are any number of people who I debate on a regular basis who acknowledge that they merely choose that article of faith in all its forms. I choose my faith in my god, and I choose to ‘believe it’ despite knowing with near certainty my self delusion, and the psychological device god functions to fulfill. But I never use this faith in interpersonal ARGUMENT (truth) I only use this faith in personal CHOICE (preference).

    There are those people who are unable to choose not to rely on either faith by choice, or introspection regardless of choice, because of biological (genetic constraints) – the most obvious being women’s various collectivist cognitive biases.

    There are those people who deny that a choice is possible, because they cannot conceive of decidability by other means.

    There are those people that engage in justification for that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by moral means.

    There are those people who engage in self and other deceit to defend that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by moral means.

    There are those who advocate self and other deceit to defend that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by immoral means.

    Jay makes use of:

    0-supernaturalism,

    1-platonism,

    2-pseudorationalism,

    but worst of all, he makes use of:

    3-cosmopolitan pseudoscience in the form of psychologizing,

    4-cosmopolitan propagandizing, in the form of ridicule, shaming, and rallying.

    5-the ad hom attack to obtain attention.

    and furthermore

    6-he preys upon those lacking the ability, knowledge, and experience to circumvent his deceits.

    7-he has highly (over) invested in the creation of a persona in order to obtain attention, and like all ‘priests’ attempts to capture enough of that attention to create an environment in which he can experience his deceptions as if they are natural rather than fictional phenomenon.

    Any debate depends upon the presumption that the other party can (a) understand your arguments if you can construct them well enough (b) participate honestly, (c) constrain one’s self to that which is categorical, reasonable, rational, and empirical – testable by the other party.

    I have no confidence that jay can (a) understand that he errs, nor can he understand testimonialism, (b) can conduct a debate honestly, (c) can constrain himself to the testable, and (d) refrain from his adopted cosmopolitan (marxist) techniques of ridicule, rallying, shaming, pseudoscience (psychologizing), and therefore (e) debate whether testimonialism is testifiable vs whether his ‘metaphysical dependencies’ are testifiable.

    Testimonialism and Propertarianism are not something I ask people to believe. It is a logical, operational, methodology for testable speech that empowers people to demonstrate whether they and others understand their arguments, and to construct alternative explanations from those arguments put forward, by means of strict construction. Propertarian statements are subjectively testable, they do not require ‘belief’ (faith).

    So, I see no value in the pretense of debate, since NO ACT OF DEBATE IS POSSIBLE between logical and nonsensical propositions.

    And honestly, as long as he and his followers do not trouble me too much, I don’t really have any interest other than the odd curiosity that there is a market for nonsense of all kinds.

    So that’s you’re answer. “It would be a waste of time.”

    –“It would not”–Tristann J. DM

    Then you would need to explain to me why not.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-10 18:55:00 UTC