( Why do we care if an old man pays a hooker for sex? I mean we’re always paying for it anyway? If it’s out of the commons, and it’s voluntary fine. If it’s involuntary because of traffickers, the that’s f-king evil and has to be dealt with ‘harshly’. if it’s involving those lacking maturity, then it has to be dealt with ‘brutally’. The ‘punish the Kraft’s of the world for paying hookers is just nonsensical. )
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-26 07:11:00 UTC
THOSE WHO “GRADUATE” TO PROPERTARIANISM
—“I’m almost silent on political matters since becoming a Propertarian – I’m embarrassed about libertarianism and objectivist fervour in the past and cannot speak unless I’ve done due diligence.”—Gary Knight
…
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-26 00:21:58 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100189190292164608
CULT!!!!
.
“Sigilum Militum De Iuris Naturae”
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-25 19:59:36 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100123163977932800
THOSE WHO “GRADUATE” TO PROPERTARIANISM
—“I’m almost silent on political matters since becoming a Propertarian – I’m embarrassed about libertarianism and objectivist fervour in the past and cannot speak unless I’ve done due diligence.”—Gary Knight
…
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-25 19:21:00 UTC
DEFINITION: –“WHAT DOES GSRM (or GSRRM) STAND FOR?”–
(needs daily reposting)
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-25 19:18:00 UTC
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53004989_10157013266502264_8578855676615327744_n_10157013266492264.jpg THE OMFG Q OF THE DAY: “CAN YOU OWN P-SSY?”
Answering this ‘fringe’ stuff simply demonstrates the power of propertarian analysis. 😉 And it’s funny….. lol
—“Curt Doolittle can pu–y be property?”—Kyle Brawn
You know, under the right conditions, I would answer that question sarcastically and get hammered for it. But at the moment I have my wits about me, and I will say that:
Empirically, for almost all of history, it has been property. I am not sure it still isn’t. It’s just collective rather than private ownership.
Empirically, Given The Possible Series:
1. Possession in fact (under your control – self defense )
2. Consensual Property. (normative property – reciprocal defense)
3. Institutional Property (property rights – institutional defense)
It is possible to have ‘it’ under your control, normatively under your control, and institutional under your control.
Having ‘it’ just requires your ability to protect your control by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means.
In general it’s pretty difficult without (a) a slave population, and (b) institutional means of defending it.
Given that ‘it’ is not capable of self defense, ‘it’ doesn’t have an opinion. It is instead, the men who are willing to insure or prevent ‘ownership’ by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means that determine the outcome.
In general the outcome depends upon (a) the affordability of surplus native females willingness of native brothers and fathers to tolerate or (b) the affordability of surplus alien females and the ability of native females to rally their protecting males to prohibit the discount of their female market value by alien females.
The future has a very good chance of restoring slavery as far as I can tell, and the recent period of luxury produced by the western advances in technology may be a temporary rather than permanent progression.
That is, I think, the argument.
Hence, scarce females, protected by fathers and brothers produce high female market value, and plentiful females unprotected by fathers and brothers produce low female market value.
In other words Might Makes Rights – whether right or wrong.
Always and everywhere.
“Veritas Et Violentia”James Dmitro Makienko”Hence, scarce females, protected by fathers and brothers produce high female market value, and plentiful females unprotected by fathers and brothers produce low female market value.”
This just describes muslim/middle east christian women in Canada vs white atheist chicks. When women here were declared “persons” 100 years ago t was originally OK as the existing institutional and reciprocal means from the existing christian (50/50 catholic/ trad protestant) culture worked fine until the 60s when sexual revolutions destroyed it. The value of a patriarchal religion is in getting the women to not spread their legs and forces their emotional nature to follow men and not screw things up in the society.Feb 25, 2019, 11:51 PMCurt Doolittledoesn’t need to be religion, just law, but yes.
Religion is just shitty law, and bad education.Feb 26, 2019, 12:13 AMJames Dmitro MakienkoCurt Doolittle For women religion has some utility. Religion prevents neurotypical (non-autistic) women’s emotions from causing harm by channeling them into healthy sustainable pro-social behavior that. Emotions is what women need to care for infants. If a woman is autistic they are generally bad at caring for infants (just ask my wife), but they have a foot in both rational and emotional worlds. My wife describes it as being a man on the inside but looks like a woman on the outside. She says that non-autistic women are attracted to things like sparkles (she sells jewelry to them), art, beautiful singing etc – just like what can find in a traditional church or a mosque – as well as the community around it. They are moved by the chanting and repetition.The religion prevents women from using GSRRM on society by creating the monopoly of use of GSRRM on women – using gossip (religious myths), shaming (for emotional destructive behavior), rallying (church service), ridicule (thot patrol), moralizing (here is a moral code for you to follow). This monopoly enables men in congregation/society/polity to be in charge of politics/discourse/agency. It enables men to fight and win while keeping women faithful and not spreading legs to an army of invaders from other countries. By removing religion as a tool of redirecting GSRRM in women both politics/economics in today’s west focus on marketing to women.Feb 26, 2019, 12:37 AMCurt DoolittleJames Dmitro Makienko correctFeb 26, 2019, 12:46 AMCurt Doolittlewell done.Feb 26, 2019, 12:46 AMCurt DoolittleIf I get a chance I’ll edit and quote. too late my time. -sleeping.Feb 26, 2019, 12:46 AMJB BurnsIf you are a Chad they will tell you you own it😂Feb 26, 2019, 11:06 AMJoshua NielsenFeb 26, 2019, 8:16 PMPaul OliverI’m pleasantly surprised you’re not getting fb jailed anymore, you must have caught the rats in your friends listMar 1, 2019, 5:26 AMTHE OMFG Q OF THE DAY: “CAN YOU OWN P-SSY?”
Answering this ‘fringe’ stuff simply demonstrates the power of propertarian analysis. 😉 And it’s funny….. lol
—“Curt Doolittle can pu–y be property?”—Kyle Brawn
You know, under the right conditions, I would answer that question sarcastically and get hammered for it. But at the moment I have my wits about me, and I will say that:
Empirically, for almost all of history, it has been property. I am not sure it still isn’t. It’s just collective rather than private ownership.
Empirically, Given The Possible Series:
1. Possession in fact (under your control – self defense )
2. Consensual Property. (normative property – reciprocal defense)
3. Institutional Property (property rights – institutional defense)
It is possible to have ‘it’ under your control, normatively under your control, and institutional under your control.
Having ‘it’ just requires your ability to protect your control by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means.
In general it’s pretty difficult without (a) a slave population, and (b) institutional means of defending it.
Given that ‘it’ is not capable of self defense, ‘it’ doesn’t have an opinion. It is instead, the men who are willing to insure or prevent ‘ownership’ by individual, reciprocal, or institutional means that determine the outcome.
In general the outcome depends upon (a) the affordability of surplus native females willingness of native brothers and fathers to tolerate or (b) the affordability of surplus alien females and the ability of native females to rally their protecting males to prohibit the discount of their female market value by alien females.
The future has a very good chance of restoring slavery as far as I can tell, and the recent period of luxury produced by the western advances in technology may be a temporary rather than permanent progression.
That is, I think, the argument.
Hence, scarce females, protected by fathers and brothers produce high female market value, and plentiful females unprotected by fathers and brothers produce low female market value.
In other words Might Makes Rights – whether right or wrong.
Always and everywhere.
“Veritas Et Violentia”
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-25 19:08:00 UTC
THE LAW ON RECIPROCITY, RESTITUTION, RESTITUTION
Restitution (1x) for Accident
Double (2x) Damages for failure to admit
Triple (3x) Damages against individuals for harm
Decuple (10x) Damages against groups for harm.
…
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-25 15:03:02 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1100048530943721473
“CURT: WHAT IS THE ESSENCE OF PROPERTARIANISM?”
—“Can you define the essence of Propertarianism? There’s a saying “I have found the essence of Bushido – To die” Is there something similar in regard to Propertarianism?
So for example: sovereignty and reciprocity?”—
lol… what does ‘essence’ mean?
Propertarianism isn’t ONE thing.
It’s a collection of things.
But let’s use poetic license:
The essence of P-metaphysics is the grammars.
The essence of P-psychology of acquisitionism – all human psychology can be explained as acquisition.
The essence of p-epistemology of testimonialism is the completion of the method.
The essence of p-sociology of compatibilism is the division of perceptual, cognitive, memory, advocacy, negotiation, and labor with cooperation as a test of comparison.
The essence of p-ethics (propertarian ethics) is reciprocity as the test of comparison and property as the system of measurement.
The essence of p-politics (the natural law) is strict construction using all of the above.
The essence of the western group evolutionary strategy is the uniqueness of aristocratic egalitarianism: heroism and excellence, sovereignty and reciprocity, truth before face, and duty before self and family, Rule of law and the Jury, and markets in all aspects of life.
So the essence of propertarianism (the set of all ideas) is that this set of ideas that unifies all disciplines of human thought into a single commensurable system that is contiguous with physical science.
So if you had me make an analogy to the essence of bushido, it’s “The essence of the uniqueness of western civilization” written in logical and scientific terms.
I mean, you guys can ask me to simplify it all ya want but it’s not simple. It’s A LOT OF STUFF
Curt
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-24 18:26:00 UTC
That would not be a cost on a demonstrated in vestment, but instead, an attempt to skirt the cost of self regulation in defense of the commons. In other words, the speaker would be committing evidence that he was a free rider (a criminal).
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-24 17:18:08 UTC
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099720143922520065
Reply addressees: @rohansharan @mmay3r
Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099701981520777217
IN REPLY TO:
@rohansharan
@curtdoolittle @mmay3r What if someone argues that hurting their feelings is an imposition of costs upon them by you and force you with your own rule of law that you should create “safe spaces”.
Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1099701981520777217
photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/52647513_10157010566322264_8109264868961419264_o_10157010566307264.jpg Bill JoslinAnd generous tit-for-tat doesn’t imply unbound forgiveness, but rather occasional deviations from tit-for-tat towards generousity (forgiveness). It essentially resets the game for cooperation when cooperation has failed.
Eye-for-an-eye in most things with an occasional “turn the other cheek” to re-establish trust and Cooperation (which would be a second order reciprocal exchange – offering forgiveness now to secure the opportunity to be forgiven in the future if you screw up later) – otherwise known as incremental supression (I see incremental supression as attempting to achieve an optimum between forbearance and prosecution)Feb 24, 2019, 2:39 PMGreg HamiltonI don’t know Freyr is a pretty good role model…Feb 24, 2019, 5:49 PMPaul BardDidn’t Axelrod find the optimal strategy was exhaustive forgiveness, because tit-for-tat may be wrongly triggered by poor or mistaken information about your trading partners?
In other words, we can’t be sure the other isn’t doing their best to reciprocate, but we can definitively use force to oppose the other from doing harm.Feb 24, 2019, 9:52 PM
Source date (UTC): 2019-02-24 14:11:00 UTC