Curt Doolittle

Category: Commentary, Critique, and Response

  • Untitled

    http://buff.ly/1NNWcKV

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-17 07:49:00 UTC

  • AT HIS BEST

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H37JIKFVp7MHOPPE AT HIS BEST :

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 16:20:00 UTC

  • know. Libertarians just try to justify free riding. They’re no different than li

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/04/27/its-up-to-rothbardians-to-demonstrate-that-they-are-not/I know. Libertarians just try to justify free riding. They’re no different than liberals except they don’t directly want to steal from you. they just want to do it indirectly. By free riding.

    Everyone fights, no one quits. If you do, then you’re a thief. It’s that simple.

    A FEW RELATED POSTS ON LIBERTARIANS AS PROGRESSIVE LIBERTINES

    WE ARE MORALLY BLIND

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/04/27/we-are-morally-blind-limited-in-our-perceptions-and-memory-and-severely-in-our-reason-the-last-thing-we-should-do-is-construct-large-risk-prone-intentionally-managed-states/

    LIBERTINE COGNITIVE BIAS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/04/27/libertarian-moral-spectrum-blindness/

    ITS UP TO ROTHBARDIANS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ARE NOT MORALLY BLIND

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/04/27/its-up-to-rothbardians-to-demonstrate-that-they-are-not/

    THE DECEPTION OF “PSYCHIC BENEFIT”

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/04/27/the-moral-deception-of-the-ethical-standard-of-psychic-benefit/

    REFORMING LIBERTARIAN ETHICS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2014/02/15/reforming-libertarian-ethics/

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 15:29:00 UTC

  • EATING THE WEAK. NO MERCY. —“Saying things like “Better to learn from my work

    EATING THE WEAK. NO MERCY.

    —“Saying things like “Better to learn from my work and ask questions than think ones self able to participate in philosophical discourse of this magnitude.” is never to anyone’s benefit, for the record. It just makes you sound like infantile and butthurt. Therefore I am not sorry to inform you that oneself*”— anonymous female dimwit.

    Again. Shaming. Attempt at using guilt to demand equality when there is none.

    This is the feminine reproductive strategy talking, not reason, science, or truth.

    Either one can construct an argument that survives criticism or one cannot.

    Shaming is what little girls do. Adult men simply seek truth.

    I speak as I do to invite challenges.

    You speak as you do to avoid them.

    Therefore which of us is testing our theories against all comers?

    Not you. You haven’t levied one.

    See?

    The postmodern, feminist, pseudoscientific, era of deception is done.

    Welcome to the revolution.

    =====

    I am a prosecutor of falsehood and deception in ethical, moral, political, and economic theory.

    The greatest deceit is pseudoscience and misapplied rationalism.

    The preferred tactic is shaming and rallying and walking away from debate.

    The only way to overturn the century of pseudoscience and deceit distributed by rallying and shaming is truth.

    To prosecute the deceptive I’m all walks of life.

    To use truth to defeat and shame the deceitful.

    If the truth is unpleasant and you walk away we win.

    We silence the liars.

    And that is how truth prevails.

    Cheers.

    ( every man a warrior, every man a sheriff, every man a judge, every man a sovereign.)

    BTW: Arrogance is a tactic I use to draw criticism on the one hand and defeat shaming on the other.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 10:58:00 UTC

  • “Not all “Charles” nor Causes are equal. “Killing in the name of Charles Manson

    —“Not all “Charles” nor Causes are equal. “Killing in the name of Charles Manson has no redeeming value. Killing in the name of Charles Martel is an honor.”— James Santagata

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-16 04:38:00 UTC

  • Untitled

    http://www.sciencedump.com/content/people-who-use-emojis-lot-are-hornier-according-scienceOMG.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 05:03:00 UTC

  • TO THE FINAL WORD ON ETHICAL SYSTEMS? —“My philosophical problem with conseque

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/14/intentional-abuse-of-ethical-systems-as-a-means-of-parasitism-2/CLOSE TO THE FINAL WORD ON ETHICAL SYSTEMS?

    —“My philosophical problem with consequentialism is it’s lacking solid base.”— A Friend (Free Northerner)

    I’d like to give you a different suggestion.

    That we practice four levels of ethics depending upon the skill in the area of our actions.

    1) Pedagogical Myths…(very young)…………..Stories (WESTERN PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM)

    2) Virtue Ethics………….(young)………………….Biographies

    3) Rule Ethics……………(inexperience adult)…Laws

    4) Outcome Ethics……..(experienced adult)….Science

    But more importantly, ethical systems can be used as an excuse to steal. We are aware that altrusim can be abused easily. This is why I always suggest we test ethical statements for both the obverse (what is stated) and the reverse (what is not stated).

    So the lower the precision (information content) of the ethical system, the more opportunity there is to claim that one is ethical while acting unethically.

    My argument is that rothbardian libertarianism is built on this principle.

    So instead I argue that we must use the most sophisticated (informationally dense) ethical system that we can, given our abilities, and fall back if we lack it.

    ARTIFICIAL DISTINCTION FALLACY

    So there is no difference in ethical models, only a difference in our skill level in any given area of thought. And that all ethical systems are simply increasingly precise variations on the same theory that we must achieve our greatest potential but do so without externalizing costs.

    “SOLID BASE”

    Therefore all ethical systems have a ‘solid base’. Impose no cost, and in particular impose no cost that will cost YOU due to retaliation by physical means(violence), procedural means(restitution), or normative means (reputation that costs you opportunities).

    The method of imposing no cost on others is to limit ones actions that impose no involuntary costs, and engage in actions that impose costs only if they are product of, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary, and free of imposition of cost by externality.

    As far as I know this is the correction of the artificial distinction between ethical systems. There is none. There are only different rules we can follow (techniques) given the information at our disposal.

    SEE:

    INTENTIONAL ABUSES OF RULE ETHICAL SYSTEMS

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2016/01/14/intentional-abuse-of-ethical-systems-as-a-means-of-parasitism-2/

    THE FALLACY OF “FREE TRADE ABSOLUTISM” AS PATHOLOGICAL ALTRUISM

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/11/07/the-fallacy-of-free-trade-absolutism/

    Please keep up your good work. I enjoy Free Northerner.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 02:28:00 UTC

  • ISLAM AS INFANTILIZATION OF THE HUMAN MIND —–He proceeds to “list a few of th

    ISLAM AS INFANTILIZATION OF THE HUMAN MIND

    —–He proceeds to “list a few of their habits which Arabs are known for.” His subheadings include: “A lack of privacy for other’s space,” “Childish behavior,” “Stealing shoes,” “Etiquettes when eating,” “Getting angry” “Sleeping habits,” “The staring competition,” “Treating animals badly,” “Beggars,” “Driving ‘skills’,” and “Empty words.” —-

    Damn. Thats it you know. It’s not just ignorance but infantilization as the result of imposed ignorance.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 09:16:00 UTC

  • IF YOU CAN’T DEFEND IT THEN WHY DO YOU ADVOCATE IT? — You are not making reaso

    IF YOU CAN’T DEFEND IT THEN WHY DO YOU ADVOCATE IT?

    — You are not making reasonable arguments —

    Translated: “I am too ignorant to understand what you’re saying”.

    Uh huh. I”m one of the best living and working moral philosophers.

    Either you can make an argument or you can’t. If you can’t that’s fine. But all categories are judged by the main, not the margins. And your attempt to suggest that some outlier is meaningful, is like me stating that a statistical irrelevance is meaningful. It’s not. Its just an act of deception.

    We do not judge an individual by the properties of the class, we judge a class by the properties of the individuals. Else racism is rational.

    As a class, islam is demonstrably a force for ignorance and poverty and conflcit in this world. Until it no longer is a force for ignorance and poverty and conflict in this world, and the most backward civilization on earth, there are not redeeming categorical virtues.

    So you might say that these PEOPLE who happen to be muslims might be ok, but you cannot say that Islam is ok under any circumstances.

    We are all in a world war against islam just as we were in a world war against communism. Why? Because islam is as destructive to the mind, as communism was to the economy.

    That you lack the requisite knowledge to engage in this discussion should be evidence to you that you are not in a position to advocate one of the great evils of human history.

    You do not know yet that you are a pawn because of your lack of sophistication. But as a specialist in truth I do.

    You are selling mental cancer as a cure. You are no different than the distributor of muslim heroin with the promise of temporary experiential joy at the cost of long term demise.

    This is what it is. You are an evil man whether you know it or not.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 08:50:00 UTC

  • shaming me you do what you accuse me of”— Ah. But the condition is quite diffe

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/19/propertarianism-is-for-the-prosecution/—“by shaming me you do what you accuse me of”—

    Ah. But the condition is quite different. Lets see…

    Work through it because you cannot escape the fact that you use misrepresentative language to obscure your attribution of authority to the self by justificationary-rationality, rather than to non-retaliation (cost) by ratio-empiricism. ie: you err.

    We aren’t debating any longer. I accuse you of deceit. This deceit may be the product of wishful thinking. It may be justified by inarticulate obscurant language, but it is not deceit by intent, then it is deceit by wishful thinking none the less.

    ***NAP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation.*** Jewish law, culture, and religion attempt to preserve separatism so that they gain the benefits of the host’s commons production, without paying for the normative commons. Just as Gypsies do, but they keep the cost low enough, and appeal to our altruism enough, that the cost of extermination is more than we are willing to pay.

    And this is the Libertine (NAP/ISV strategy), which is to claim not that separatism is a parasitic subgroup strategy within a host. But that all members of a polity should engage in separatist ethics.

    And this is non-rational. It is the host’s production of commons that make free riding possible. It is the host’s production of commons that make the host itself possible. Because even your parasitic ethics of NAP/IVP must be constructed as a commons, and enforced as a commons.

    ***I’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.*** Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.

    (This is probably more understandable to you than the technique of analytic philosophy.)

    So, you see, that is what separates those of us who defend the commons from those of you who harm it. We pay the cost of commons maintenance. You do not.

    And that is why you can select free riding on the commons using NAP/IVP and we select NA/DemonstratedProperty despite the high cost of policing the commons.

    So since you engage in deceit and harm the commons, I engage in accusation.

    And when that occurs we are not debating. I am prosecuting you.

    Because you pollute the commons with excuses for non payment of them while relying upon them. ie you’re a parasite.

    PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:27:00 UTC