Not enough characters in a tweet for full list of people to shame with new right propaganda. 🙂
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-23 18:47:31 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756923716244758528
Reply addressees: @HbdNrx @WhiskeyAndRust
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756915644562452481
IN REPLY TO:
@HbdNrx
@WhiskeyAndRust @curtdoolittle don’t forget Churchill’s role
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756915644562452481
Jeez people. If I’ve strictly constructed something it’s pretty likely I’m not making an error. Secondly, the scope of what I consider because of full accounting is probably broader than your frame of reference, and that’s throwing you. But thirdly I reserve the right to trash talk, and screw around – ’cause I’m freaking (mostly) human.
So, you know, ask – don’t accuse. I have a pretty good record.
(Well, at least, other than being fooled by Onion articles on an all too regular basis.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-23 13:20:00 UTC
https://propertarianforum.wordpress.com/2016/07/22/property-and-norms/BUTCH SAYS IT BETTER THAN I DO.
This is how it is done. Eli has always been a better communicator that I am – particularly about Aristocracy. But think Butch is really getting there. I couldn’t have done this well myself.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-23 12:25:00 UTC
LIBERTINES AND SJW’S ALIKE
Apparently, the technique of using cap-headlines on posts is offensive to Rothbardians, who need a safe place – right next to the Social Justice Warriors – that is free of ratio-scientific argument, and where they can desperately cling to their collective suspension of disbelief free of threats that would contradict their self-worth-sustaining variation of right-Marxist ideology.
Let me help you: incentives. While neither a commune without property or a Private Voluntary Society with property is possible for the same reasons: incentives. And why? Because with or without property (a) neither can hold territory from competitors, and so must be held as a ‘ghetto’ by a political entity that can, and (b) communes that depend on normative and institutional communism (rothbardian institutional communism), and communes that depend on normative, institutional, and propertied communism (marxist total communism), both lack sufficient incentives to survive competition from non-communist political orders.
Why? Because private, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property is a competitive advantage.
Rothbardianism is just normative and institutional communism, as a proposed subsitute for total communism.
private property, shareholder property, common property, normative property, institutional property, territorial property: all groups need them to resist competition from other groups.
There is no free ride, and no discount available on the range of capital one must protect in order to create liberty.
We must protect ALL Property in ALL forms from parasitism and free riding if we are to create a polity capable of both the incentives to attract, and incentives to retain a population
The age of wandering shepherds and merchants ended. We call those people vagrants, unassimilated immigrant underclasses, gypsies, diasporic financiers and traders: a spectrum of free riders (parasites) And they exist only with permission of the hosts that DO pay the high costs of protecting private, shareholder, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property.
Humans organize. That the kind of people attracted to rothbardianism are those who are less desirable to organize with is the explanation of why they find the idea of an ‘organization’ which asks no common costs of its members. That does not mean these same people can form a polity capable of competitive survival even by incentives to join and stay. It is still preferable to live in a city or the country instead of (costly) suburbia – which is why people do it.
Now, we can construct a contractual society on the anglo model, which creates a market for relationships, a market for private property, a market for shareholder property, a market for commons, and a market for warriors to defend the commons, all within a monopoly we call natural law.
And in this system all property is private. But one cannot escape paying for the construction and maintenance of that society even if that society is constructed for the thorough suppression of free riding on material goods and services.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-21 23:12:00 UTC
The reason people criticized you is the same: they don’t have an answer either. Once you do, Plato ~= a 20thc conservative.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-21 14:00:33 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756126724551827458
Reply addressees: @HisExitness
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756110765719949312
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/756110765719949312
Plato wants to restore the past. Why? Because he doesn’t have a solution. So he’s analogous to 20th/c conservatives. #tcot #tlot #nrx
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-21 12:45:57 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/756107947252543488
CRITICISM: CURT, YOU”RE A MATERIALIST AND THAT’S INSUFFICIENT FOR A PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK
—“Limiting your philosophy to pure materialism is a trap and this is what you promote here.”—
That is because you wish something from me that I do not provide, and what I provide inhibits you in obtaining what you desire.
What I promote is “the other side of the coin”.
For those who are weak need guidance.
For those who are strong, how to rule.
Those who need guidance seek ideas and inspiration that provide the greatest return.
Those who need to choose between conflicts need methods of decision making that cause the least harm.
Hence we have lower class religion, middle-class philosophy, upper middle-class science, and upper-class rule of law.
I am not writing a middle-class philosophy a lower class philosophy but a method of rule that makes maximum Liberty possible.
What people do with that Liberty is not my interest or problem. That is a problem for artists, and priests and mothers.
Creating the privilege of Liberty is my concern because without it they do not possess that luxury.
So if you need leadership and guidance and inspiration and emotional reward then you are someone who must be ruled.
If you seek the boundaries of your power so that you remain powerful enough to create liberty for eternity then that is my objective.
We men are unequal and perform different functions.
– Aristocracy judges.
– Priests advocate.
– Merchants and craftsman produce.
– Women bear and rear.
Simple minds seek a narrative conflation with which to produce a single axis of decidability because this is either all they know how to do or all they are cognitively able to do.
I produce a de-conflated equilibrium of causal axis that is useful for those who require greater precision and who can and desire to work with the equilibrial forces that exist in man and nature and in which man continuously seeks an equilibrium – and equilibrium that if ever obtained would result not in optimums but fragility, stagnation, and eventual loss to the red queen.
Now I am a charitable teacher. But this is very far above you. And you might consider pondering it rather than struggling so desperately to maintain your self-confidence in the single axis conflationary methods of decision-making that make you only slightly better at human cognition than a kindergartener.
—“You are (only) human”—
Yes, I am human. But by any measure, I have an extraordinary talent for analytic deconflation and the distillation of properties into first causes that is no doubt an accident of birth.
Thus Endeth the rather futile lesson.
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-21 10:34:00 UTC
Plato wants to restore the past. Why? Because he doesn’t have a solution. So he’s analogous to 20th/c conservatives. #tcot #tlot #nrx
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-21 08:45:00 UTC
Q&A: CURT, WHATS WITH YOUR REJECTION OF PLATO?
It is best to read Plato(idealist) along with Dante(apologist) and Macchiavelli(empiricist),with the understanding that as he is writing Greece has passed out of its high point, and he is trying to find a method for ‘manufacturing’ great leaders like Pericles. He wants to restore the past. Why? Because he doesn’t have a solution. So he’s kind of an analogy for 20th century conservatives.
Aristotle, like Machiavelli,doesn’t try to make excuses for anything, he just reads a lot of constitutions and tells us what he finds. Hayek the same.
Aristotle, Macchiavelli, Locke, Smith, Hume, Jefferson, Pareto, Weber, Durkheim, Burhnam, Hayek. All these authors practice Empiricism vs Idealism.
The reason I’m exasperated with Plato is its he who the church turned to in order to create the priesthood.
What they should have turned to was Roman Law for rule, Spartan Warriors for enforcement, Greek houses of government for commons, and Stoic Personal Philosophy, and Polytheistic Political Religion.
But the dependence upon german mercenaries, the plagues that decimated the population, the eventual loss of the grain fields of north africa made them poor, and the people ignorant, and the lies of the church were simply a cheaper method of governing, with a smaller number of people, than was the army, lawyers, judges, and senators, all of whom must be expensively educated and thoroughly indoctrinated.
MANAGEMENT CANNOT SUFFER INFINITE DILUTION
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-21 06:21:00 UTC
IF ANY OF YOU ARE STILL DECEIVED, WE CAN CURE YOU
(marxism, feminism, democratic secular humanism, mainstream democrat, republican, libertarian, anarcho capitalism, neo-reactionary)
—“There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.” Here we have the means (violence) to an end (liberty).How is this not edgy consequentialism again. Fucking animals can consequentialism bro. But thanks for your concern. Holy shit utilitarianism too! It’s literally a shit smorgasbord of consequentialism! Yeah I’m into deontological things like ethics and shit”— Greg Gilson (a victim of cosmopolitan deception, and current Useful Idiot)
Neither you nor the author of the OP seem to grasp the difference between BELIEF and the ABSENCE of demonstrated preference, and INCENTIVES and the PRESENCE of demonstrated preference. In other words, the difference between an existentially impossible model and an existentially possible one.
Nor do you realize the difference between internally consistent but informationally incomplete, and externally non-correspondent argument, with internally consistent, informationally complete, and demonstrably correspondent argument.
Nor do you realize that selfish(isolationist), imitative(environmental), virtue(hero), deontological(rule), and teleological (outcome), ethics constitute a spectrum of problems from total ignorance to total knowledge – and that one only chooses a lower demand for knowledge when he lacks the information to use the ethical standard that requires greater knowledge. Unless of course, he is engaged in deception wherein the use of greater knowledge and a corresponding methodology of ethics that makes use of greater knowledge, would falsify his arguments.
Nor do you seem to realize that your form argument is constructed by the same form of deceit as marxism: wishful thinking, overloading and suggestion, and appeal to cognitive bias that grants altruistic trust to appeals to your reproductive strategy.
Now, while it is apparent to those of us with far greater knowledge and skill, that you are the victim of various forms of overloading and suggestion that appeals to your (lackluster) reproductive strategy and limited knowledge and ability, and therefore a “useful idiot” for advocacy on behalf of the left-marxist-center-libertine-right-neocon second great rebellion against meritocratic aristocracy and western liberty, it is not apparent to you for the same reasons you are open to such relatively easy suggestion.
But once you are made aware that you’ve been duped, the fact that you can construct an argument using philosophical terms the consequence of which you demonstrably do not grasp, there is hope that you might learn, and transcend the Second Great Deceit of Pseudoscience and Pseudorationalism, and evolve beyond Useful Idiot, and learn the method of pursuing an existentially possible form of liberty.
If any of you are still victims of cosmopolitan pseudo-mystical, pseudo-rational, or pseudo-scientific deception, we can cure you.
Curt Doolittle
The Philosophy of Aristocracy
The Propertarian Institute
Kiev, Ukraine
(note to readers: you might literally have to study this argument, or ask a few questions, but this is how you put an end to the Kantian fallacies that were adopted by the cosmopolitans and used to create the deep overloading fallacies in marxism, libertinism, and neo-conservativsm that made deceit by suggestion and appeal to reproductive cognitive bias possible. But remind people: if any of you are still fooled by the cosmopolitan fallacies – at any point on the ideological spectrum – there is hope: we can cure you.)
Source date (UTC): 2016-07-21 00:04:00 UTC