Curt Doolittle

Category: Natural Law and Reciprocity

  • Resistance is Futile. Vengeance Glorious. What shall we take as restitution?

    Resistance is Futile. Vengeance Glorious.

    What shall we take as restitution?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-08 19:23:00 UTC

  • ENSLAVEMENT OF ENEMIES IS PREFERABLE TO ENSLAVEMENT BY THEM. —“It is preferabl

    ENSLAVEMENT OF ENEMIES IS PREFERABLE TO ENSLAVEMENT BY THEM.

    —“It is preferable to ME to enslave rather than to be enslaved. For some others, the reverse may be true, or may or may not be true, depending on circumstances. Therefore, slavery may be a mutually beneficial institution.

    However, even where this is not the case, if someone desires, and acts, to enslave me, then we are not cooperating, we are at war.

    And the preferences of my enemies in war carry no positive weight with me. It is MY preferences which I will act to realize, unless and until the enemy offers terms in good faith which make cooperation preferable.”—Eli Harman

    (The left is our enemy. Because they have made our women our enemy. And our women have voted to empower our enemies.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 18:55:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM IS DESCRIPTIVE. (Eli Harman) —“Legalism is prescriptive. Prope

    PROPERTARIANISM IS DESCRIPTIVE.

    (Eli Harman)

    —“Legalism is prescriptive. Propertarianism is descriptive. We can criticize institutions by showing them to be unsustainably parasitic, dysgenic, consumptive, degenerative, or uncompetitive (existentially impossible over the long term.) We can describe institutions that are not degenerative but are productive, progressive, durable, anti-fragile, competitive (existentially possible.)

    We do not prescribe the latter, we merely prefer them. We note that the former will always tend to fall and the latter to rise.”—Eli Harman

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 18:53:00 UTC

  • WHICH PROMISE IS MORE HONEST, AND MORE TRUE? What’s more honest? You have natura

    WHICH PROMISE IS MORE HONEST, AND MORE TRUE?

    What’s more honest? You have natural rights? God made you in his image? We are all equal?

    Or, from a long line of animals you have been domesticated. You can transition from an animal in the possession of other men, to a man who has property, in exchange for an oath, and your promise to fulfill it, in every day of your life, in the market for reproduction we call marriage; in the market for consumption we call the economy; in the market for commons we call government; in the market for defense we call war; in the market for information we call knowledge; in the market for norms we call culture. And if you swear a contract with all other sovereign men, that you will speak the truth and only the truth, impose no cost on any of those markets without payment for it in advance, and to punish all those who do otherwise, then you may too rise to sovereignty, and become man, rather than mere animal. But pray you take heed, because if you violate this oath, we will punish, deprive, or kill you for it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 16:00:00 UTC

  • BUT CURT. CANT I HAVE POLY-LOGICAL LAW? DOESN’T LIBERTARIANISM HAVE SOME EXCUSE

    BUT CURT. CANT I HAVE POLY-LOGICAL LAW? DOESN’T LIBERTARIANISM HAVE SOME EXCUSE TO SURVIVE? (NO)

    I think that the decidability of sovereignty forces natural law, which in turn forces markets for rule (monarchy), and markets for commons (government), and markets for goods and services (economies), and markets for reproduction (marriage), and markets for consumption (voluntary exchange).

    i think that if you have sovereignty then liberty and freedom and subsidy are possible, so long as you limit the scale of those who need subsidy to that which does not impeded competitive productivity among competing polities.

    i think if you are stating a preference for poly logical law then that is no sovereignty, nor liberty, nor subside, but discretionary rule.

    I think if you construct a polity out of contracts for exchanges within the limits of sovereign natural law, then you can do whatever you wish that allows you to survive competition with other polities for members — and for tolerating your existence.

    I think that if you do not produce competitive commons than no such polity can create sovereignty, liberty, freedom and subsidy, and I think that no such polity can survive competition for people, and the record would indicate no such polity can survive tolerance from competitors because of the people that prefer such a polity (pirates and free riders), and I think that the only evidence of such polities is as outposts under strong empires who grant greater free riding in exchange for holding claims on the territory in the empire’s name, thereby giving excuse to that empire to war with others if they seek to obtain futures on the resources there.

    As far as I know that set of paragraphs is the end of libertarianism except as cheap option-buying of resources by empires and states of sufficient military power to ensure them.

    Just as I am sure that all Jewish colonies are merely options on using them as tax collectors, money changers, and loan sharks without subjecting the nobility to the risk of disapproval that is a necessary byproduct of taking advantage of consumers by means of interest.

    There is no value in consumer interest on consumption. There is only value in interest on experiment that might lead to cheaper and more varied consumption.

    That again, is an end to yet another mythos.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 13:35:00 UTC

  • FROM ANCAP TO PROPERTARIAN. WHY? LIBERTINE BUFFOONERY. —“One of the things tha

    FROM ANCAP TO PROPERTARIAN. WHY? LIBERTINE BUFFOONERY.

    —“One of the things that most influenced my departure from Ancap was the behavior of many of the more ardent, entrenched libertines when faced with arguments from better evidence (HBD, Demonstrated Property, R vs K selection). While I previously believed Ancap had the most refined understanding of economics and the sociopolitical, that started to seriously come into question when I saw just how dishonorably many of them behaved when faced with worthy adversaries. Notwithstanding my own inability to articulate a convincing rebuttal, it was particularly damning to witness the sheer buffoonery and often times overt parasitical behavior I had previously only associated with socialists. However, it took me sometime after that to be able to properly understand the nature of what exactly they were trying to achieve a discount from. That search is what lead me to you, Curt Doolittle.”— Jeremie Makell

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 11:00:00 UTC

  • EQUALITY: IT’S ALL JUST FRAUD TO ESCAPE EXCHANGE Science sucks. The earth isn’t

    EQUALITY: IT’S ALL JUST FRAUD TO ESCAPE EXCHANGE

    Science sucks. The earth isn’t flat. The sun doesn’t revolve around the earth. Life isn’t designed. And men and women aren’t equal. The existence of inequality forces us to conduct exchanges. The attempt to deceive one another that we are equal is an attempt to force transfers rather than conduct exchanges. In other words, all talk of equality is both lost opportunity for mutual satisfaction, and an act of fraud: theft.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-05 09:38:00 UTC

  • RESTORING VIOLENCE TO LIBERTY Propertarianism: Putting Violence Back Into Libert

    RESTORING VIOLENCE TO LIBERTY

    Propertarianism: Putting Violence Back Into Liberty One Argument At A Time. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-05 07:19:00 UTC

  • IN PROPERTARIANISM WE ARGUE PROSECUTORILY – You can argue to obtain approval: Sa

    IN PROPERTARIANISM WE ARGUE PROSECUTORILY

    – You can argue to obtain approval: Satisfaction: Empathy.

    – You can argue to obtain consent: Negotiation: Utility.

    – You can argue for moral demand or outrage: Moralism: Reason

    – You can argue to identify truth or falsehood: Philosophy: Rationalism

    – You can argue to identify correspondence: Science: Empiricism.

    – You can argue to identify exchange or theft: Prosecution: Testimonialism.

    You see, that’s what they don’t understand. The entire western argumentative edifice is built upon the ancient assumption of the search for consent and moral persuasion, in favor of a common good – and only in rare occasions do we depend upon science since our questions are never scientific but only of cooperation or non.

    But these are all JUSTIFICATIONARY arguments.

    If instead, we are not trying to obtain consensus or consent, we are trying to determine whether or not to use violence to resist, punish, subjugate, enslave, or kill you, then your only option is to preserve our sovereignty, by boycotting us or trading with us under productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer limited to productive externality.

    There is no need to treat the weak and parasitic as equals. They are either useful and productive or they are parasitic and harmful.

    We just need to kill enough of them that our words ring true.

    Violence used to Create Sovereignty is the Highest Virtue. Because it is from Sovereignty that Liberty, freedom, and subsidy are made possible for all. And contributions to the commons by the prohibition on their consumption, is the moral method by which we transcend this world, just by the prohibition on parasitism on pain of death is the moral method by which we transcend man.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-04 13:48:00 UTC

  • “Will you speak to me, mine, and my brothers, the truth, the whole truth and not

    —“Will you speak to me, mine, and my brothers, the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Will you impose no cost by word, action or inaction upon those costs that me, mine, and my brothers have borne? Will you perform restitution for those costs you do impose upon me, mine, and my brothers? Will you insure me, mine, and my brothers against the imposition of costs by others by enforcing restitution on our behalf regardless of cost? Will you swear to kill me, mine, or any of my brothers who breaks this vow? And do you accept that me, mine, and my brothers shall kill you if you break it? If you affirm all of these, then we shall be brothers. But take heed of the contract you make here – for your life is forfeit if you break it.”—

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-02 16:20:00 UTC