Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism?

    When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism? https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/when-will-the-masses-accept-propertarianism/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 16:42:58 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259161955702575105

  • When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism?

    Apr 28, 2020, 10:51 AM P not a belief system. The masses can not “convert to P”, it doesn’t work like that. How then will P change the world? P is a technology and like all other technologies it goes through phases of development and adoption. In the early phases every technology borders on useless. The first computers (and robots) were rare and complex limited use toys seen by only a handful of dedicated specialists and understood by even less. Computing had lots of early dead ends much the same way that we have discovered dead ends in libertarianism or religion. As the technology matured and became more complex (and useful), computers turned into expensive, massive machines that required teams of experts to design, assemble and run. In 1943 Thomas Watson, president of IBM, famously said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” One of the biggest experts in the emerging field of computing got it wrong. Why? Because he was judging the technology based on its merits in 1943. As computers evolved so did the market and demand for them yet the underestimating of the power of computers never ended. In 1977 Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Again, a ridiculous statement in retrospect, but reasonable when looking at what computers offered in 1977. It takes many expensive and time consuming iterations for a technology to mature enough that average people can understand it, let alone use it or gain value from it. “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates, 1981. Another wrong prediction by an expert looking at a technology in its infancy. “Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet’s continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” – Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 Could you have predicted the future of the internet in 1995? If the elites could have predicted that a free speech platform would eat their precious newspapers and news networks, forever eliminating the gatekeepers do you think they would have let it keep developing? No one, not me, not Curt, not you, none of us can predict how P will be used in 20 years or its effects on society and I am thankful for that. If the elites knew what we were doing they would have made sure Curt (and maybe a few of you) disappeared a long time ago. Not knowing what’s going to happen is scary if you lack self confidence in your ability to evolve and overcome. Predictions and dreaming about a P future of mass adoption are distractions that don’t move us forward. The power of P will grow at exactly the rate and in the direction that its underlying technologies are growing, no faster, no slower. They will grow in the direct of producing the most value for the people investing in them. Markets in all things. P is at the place where computing was in 1981. Just starting to be useful for people who didn’t dedicate their lives to developing the technology and attracting the pioneers who would take it to the masses. Soon we will see the emergence of the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of P. People who can make applications for P that appeal to the masses. If you want to see P having more of an effect on the world you must do more than follow along and experiment. As Curt works out the underlying technology we must start producing and SELLING solutions. Take the underlying technology and make something out of it that solves a problem for the masses. Sell it, profit and reinvest in R&D. Today everyone walks around with a powerful super computer in their pocket. They use it to do things Thomas Watson would have never imagined in 1943. We can not predict the applications that will bring P to the market and the masses. We must try many things and double down on what’s working. Get out and be creative. Embrace the opportunity in this chaos. In P we don’t predict the future. We make the future.

  • When Will the Masses Accept Propertarianism?

    Apr 28, 2020, 10:51 AM P not a belief system. The masses can not “convert to P”, it doesn’t work like that. How then will P change the world? P is a technology and like all other technologies it goes through phases of development and adoption. In the early phases every technology borders on useless. The first computers (and robots) were rare and complex limited use toys seen by only a handful of dedicated specialists and understood by even less. Computing had lots of early dead ends much the same way that we have discovered dead ends in libertarianism or religion. As the technology matured and became more complex (and useful), computers turned into expensive, massive machines that required teams of experts to design, assemble and run. In 1943 Thomas Watson, president of IBM, famously said “I think there is a world market for maybe five computers.” One of the biggest experts in the emerging field of computing got it wrong. Why? Because he was judging the technology based on its merits in 1943. As computers evolved so did the market and demand for them yet the underestimating of the power of computers never ended. In 1977 Ken Olsen, founder of Digital Equipment Corporation said “There is no reason anyone would want a computer in their home.” Again, a ridiculous statement in retrospect, but reasonable when looking at what computers offered in 1977. It takes many expensive and time consuming iterations for a technology to mature enough that average people can understand it, let alone use it or gain value from it. “640K ought to be enough for anybody.” – Bill Gates, 1981. Another wrong prediction by an expert looking at a technology in its infancy. “Almost all of the many predictions now being made about 1996 hinge on the Internet’s continuing exponential growth. But I predict the Internet will soon go spectacularly supernova and in 1996 catastrophically collapse.” – Robert Metcalfe, founder of 3Com, 1995 Could you have predicted the future of the internet in 1995? If the elites could have predicted that a free speech platform would eat their precious newspapers and news networks, forever eliminating the gatekeepers do you think they would have let it keep developing? No one, not me, not Curt, not you, none of us can predict how P will be used in 20 years or its effects on society and I am thankful for that. If the elites knew what we were doing they would have made sure Curt (and maybe a few of you) disappeared a long time ago. Not knowing what’s going to happen is scary if you lack self confidence in your ability to evolve and overcome. Predictions and dreaming about a P future of mass adoption are distractions that don’t move us forward. The power of P will grow at exactly the rate and in the direction that its underlying technologies are growing, no faster, no slower. They will grow in the direct of producing the most value for the people investing in them. Markets in all things. P is at the place where computing was in 1981. Just starting to be useful for people who didn’t dedicate their lives to developing the technology and attracting the pioneers who would take it to the masses. Soon we will see the emergence of the Bill Gates and Steve Jobs of P. People who can make applications for P that appeal to the masses. If you want to see P having more of an effect on the world you must do more than follow along and experiment. As Curt works out the underlying technology we must start producing and SELLING solutions. Take the underlying technology and make something out of it that solves a problem for the masses. Sell it, profit and reinvest in R&D. Today everyone walks around with a powerful super computer in their pocket. They use it to do things Thomas Watson would have never imagined in 1943. We can not predict the applications that will bring P to the market and the masses. We must try many things and double down on what’s working. Get out and be creative. Embrace the opportunity in this chaos. In P we don’t predict the future. We make the future.

  • The Cost of Our Endeavor

    The Cost of Our Endeavor https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/the-cost-of-our-endeavor/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 16:39:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259160954891317248

  • The Cost of Our Endeavor

    Apr 29, 2020, 11:29 AM (revolution) I think radicalism, revolution, and pursuit of renaissance is personally costly for leadership. I’m a career executive entrepreneur who built my fortunes – starting in my early twenties – by acquisition and integration of companies consisting of people with different levels of education and experience. It is easier for me to see the world paternally rather than parentally, and managerially rather than interpersonally. And even more so militarily and politically rather than socially and familial. Within the spectrum of Political, Executive, Paternal, Parental, or Peerage relationships, our ‘reward’ – feedback – for our leadership varies across a big difference in not only people but time – and our frustration or self doubt must be held in check by our confidence in a field of mixed successes and failures over time. Because we wish to measure the change in individuals – rather than the social construction of organizational change that occurs through the fragmentary understanding of ever increasing numbers until they system (market) of people itself is self-correcting because there are sufficient fragments among people with partial knowledge and variation in ability that they collectively coalesce over time into emergent fundamental rules of concept, thought, paradigm, argument, and behavior without the reinforcement of the underlying understanding. I think some of us don’t have the stomach for ‘crossing the chasm’ into hostile territory: where we increasingly encounter people with increasingly greater differences in intuitions, understandings and wants. I think each of us needs to continue to discover whether we are supporter, activist, supplier, fighter, leader, and whether we educate as co-operator and ally, advisor and peer, a teacher and parent, a paternal executive, or a general for whom sacrifices – including of those we value – are the costs of winning wars for those whom we may not – but who have no other advocates. And given the spectrum of our current conditions we may not be in a personal position to choose our preference from the full range of choices available. But this is the stage we are at. Where we have a solution, there is market demand for it, and we must migrate from parents and small business owners to ‘industry leaders’ before we next migrate to politicians and generals. For some of us the cost of making a mark on history is worth paying. For others it is not. We can only make mark that we are willing and able to. But every mark adds to the whole. The only people who matter are those willing and able. The only people who matter at the beginning at first are those who fight, those who assist those who fight, and those who do not resist them. The rest are not important until they must be governed. But they are the ones who talk the most – generating demand for rule by those willing.

  • The Cost of Our Endeavor

    Apr 29, 2020, 11:29 AM (revolution) I think radicalism, revolution, and pursuit of renaissance is personally costly for leadership. I’m a career executive entrepreneur who built my fortunes – starting in my early twenties – by acquisition and integration of companies consisting of people with different levels of education and experience. It is easier for me to see the world paternally rather than parentally, and managerially rather than interpersonally. And even more so militarily and politically rather than socially and familial. Within the spectrum of Political, Executive, Paternal, Parental, or Peerage relationships, our ‘reward’ – feedback – for our leadership varies across a big difference in not only people but time – and our frustration or self doubt must be held in check by our confidence in a field of mixed successes and failures over time. Because we wish to measure the change in individuals – rather than the social construction of organizational change that occurs through the fragmentary understanding of ever increasing numbers until they system (market) of people itself is self-correcting because there are sufficient fragments among people with partial knowledge and variation in ability that they collectively coalesce over time into emergent fundamental rules of concept, thought, paradigm, argument, and behavior without the reinforcement of the underlying understanding. I think some of us don’t have the stomach for ‘crossing the chasm’ into hostile territory: where we increasingly encounter people with increasingly greater differences in intuitions, understandings and wants. I think each of us needs to continue to discover whether we are supporter, activist, supplier, fighter, leader, and whether we educate as co-operator and ally, advisor and peer, a teacher and parent, a paternal executive, or a general for whom sacrifices – including of those we value – are the costs of winning wars for those whom we may not – but who have no other advocates. And given the spectrum of our current conditions we may not be in a personal position to choose our preference from the full range of choices available. But this is the stage we are at. Where we have a solution, there is market demand for it, and we must migrate from parents and small business owners to ‘industry leaders’ before we next migrate to politicians and generals. For some of us the cost of making a mark on history is worth paying. For others it is not. We can only make mark that we are willing and able to. But every mark adds to the whole. The only people who matter are those willing and able. The only people who matter at the beginning at first are those who fight, those who assist those who fight, and those who do not resist them. The rest are not important until they must be governed. But they are the ones who talk the most – generating demand for rule by those willing.

  • To Produce Unity – We Have to Talk to Each Political Faction on Their Terms

    To Produce Unity – We Have to Talk to Each Political Faction on Their Terms https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/to-produce-unity-we-have-to-talk-to-each-political-faction-on-their-terms/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 16:38:23 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259160801925042176

  • To Produce Unity – We Have to Talk to Each Political Faction on Their Terms

    Apr 29, 2020, 1:33 PM I want to be able to respect different people with different intuitions, beliefs, and understandings. P-law and Nationalism and markets for polities for everyone is in everyone’s interest. Monopoly political orders are impossible and contrary to the natural right of self determination. We are separating the african, muslim, christian, wn/natsoc, and mainstream ‘libertarian” discussions into individual groups because we lost most of the (silent) military people due to natsoc activity. We must reach people on their own terms and build unity for DIFFERENT political orders under P-law: Let A Thousand Nations Bloom. And mixing muslim, christian, wn/natsoc, world government, antifa-marxist groups versus constitutionalist, civnat, social democratic, and traditional democratic groups prohibit outreach to one another. Until enough people understand P in each faction, comprehension, cross conversation, and collective cooperation against our united enemy of the (((financial, media, entertainment, academy))) that seeks to destroy our civilizations cannot be achieved. Our mission is to reach everyone so that ‘separation’ is possible at the expense of the (((financial, media, entertainment, academy))) and state bureaucracy, and if separation is not possible then escalation to conflict is necessary. But stifling the conversation before people understand their options is counter-productive. And so the only valuable arguments or ideas are those that are in fact arguments so to speak. And all you do when you cross paradigmatic boundaries is cloud the conversation – when P-law is UNIFYING across ALL PEOPLE who wish to live their lives as they do without imposing costs upon the way of life of others by doing so. So understand your audience. The main feeds are mainstream (rule of law, monarchic, republican, democratic mixed economy,. Post Monopoly paradigms: Christian, Muslim, WN, NATSOC, Globalist, Antifa-Marxist content to those audiences and mainstream P-content to the mainstream audiences. Thanks. GROUPS Female Propertarians: Christian Propertarians: Muslim/Secular Muslim and Propertarians Continental African Propertarianism. Mainstream Propertarians (rule of law) Socialist and Left Propertarians WN/NATSOC and Propertarians

  • To Produce Unity – We Have to Talk to Each Political Faction on Their Terms

    Apr 29, 2020, 1:33 PM I want to be able to respect different people with different intuitions, beliefs, and understandings. P-law and Nationalism and markets for polities for everyone is in everyone’s interest. Monopoly political orders are impossible and contrary to the natural right of self determination. We are separating the african, muslim, christian, wn/natsoc, and mainstream ‘libertarian” discussions into individual groups because we lost most of the (silent) military people due to natsoc activity. We must reach people on their own terms and build unity for DIFFERENT political orders under P-law: Let A Thousand Nations Bloom. And mixing muslim, christian, wn/natsoc, world government, antifa-marxist groups versus constitutionalist, civnat, social democratic, and traditional democratic groups prohibit outreach to one another. Until enough people understand P in each faction, comprehension, cross conversation, and collective cooperation against our united enemy of the (((financial, media, entertainment, academy))) that seeks to destroy our civilizations cannot be achieved. Our mission is to reach everyone so that ‘separation’ is possible at the expense of the (((financial, media, entertainment, academy))) and state bureaucracy, and if separation is not possible then escalation to conflict is necessary. But stifling the conversation before people understand their options is counter-productive. And so the only valuable arguments or ideas are those that are in fact arguments so to speak. And all you do when you cross paradigmatic boundaries is cloud the conversation – when P-law is UNIFYING across ALL PEOPLE who wish to live their lives as they do without imposing costs upon the way of life of others by doing so. So understand your audience. The main feeds are mainstream (rule of law, monarchic, republican, democratic mixed economy,. Post Monopoly paradigms: Christian, Muslim, WN, NATSOC, Globalist, Antifa-Marxist content to those audiences and mainstream P-content to the mainstream audiences. Thanks. GROUPS Female Propertarians: Christian Propertarians: Muslim/Secular Muslim and Propertarians Continental African Propertarianism. Mainstream Propertarians (rule of law) Socialist and Left Propertarians WN/NATSOC and Propertarians

  • Think Strategically

    Think Strategically https://propertarianism.com/2020/05/09/think-strategically/

    Source date (UTC): 2020-05-09 16:37:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1259160660333793282