Curt Doolittle

Category: Politics, Power, and Governance

  • POPULIST POSSIBILITIES (to molyneux) Michael DeMarco Topics of this scale are no

    POPULIST POSSIBILITIES

    (to molyneux)

    Michael DeMarco

    Topics of this scale are not a subject for call in’s. Just establishing context is an effort. And it’s too likely to convert into a debate that I would win and not necessarily want to. Whereas an interview allows for a gradual meeting of minds and exploration of how the pursuit of liberty (by permission) might be restored to the pursuit of sovereignty (in fact) now that we have fully displaced our martial aristocracy with a secular priesthood so to speak, that no longer willingly grants us permission if we earn it.

    While I have spent a substantive effort discrediting the Mises/Rothbard/Hoppe/Friedman, arguments, other than a few early comments, I’ve left Stefan alone since firstly, it appears he has tried to find an alternate path to justifying the libertarian intuition compatible with traditional western ethics. And secondly, because my criticisms would largely be of a technical nature – meaning survival:criticism and science vs explanation: justification and rationalism. So I view him as doing profound good without doing substantive harm.

    That said, conversely, Stefan is an incredible educator, and if equipped with some of my arguments it would empower him further with greater reach and greater explanatory power.

    I have no interest in popularity. But at present, in this time of change, stefan is serving as english speaking liberty’s olive branch (via positiva): Inspiration, And I am serving as it’s bundle of arrows (via negativa): Law.

    And that combination of ideas provides a very interesting possibility in this long-anticipated era of rapid change.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-04 05:27:00 UTC

  • WE ALREADY *ARE* THE BEST —“We already ARE the best Libertarians, Conservative

    WE ALREADY *ARE* THE BEST

    —“We already ARE the best Libertarians, Conservatives, and Progressives

    Libertarianism is concerned with access to markets and suppression of free riding. We do that better than them.

    Conservatives are interested in preservation of Capital and long term investment in families. We do that better too

    Progressives, when they aren’t batshit crazy, are interested in advancing the interests of the over looked and under represented.

    We have solutions to that problem too, as it’s a goal of increasing the property in toto of so called minority groups.

    Incremental suppression, full accounting and property in toto mean that the goals of all non Propertarians are best served by Propertarians.

    The reason they won’t debate is that we would expose both their goals AND their lies”— Con Eli Khan

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 16:49:00 UTC

  • Find the best 10 libertarians, best 10 conservatives, best 10 progressives, and

    Find the best 10 libertarians, best 10 conservatives, best 10 progressives, and best 10 propertarians. Bring all together for a debate.

    We would absolutely crush them all.

    The difference between advocates and prosecutors.

    The difference between excuse makers and truth tellers.

    The difference between positiva and negativa.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 07:27:00 UTC

  • the market isn’t sufficient for ostracization. this is one of the fallacies of l

    the market isn’t sufficient for ostracization.

    this is one of the fallacies of libertarianism. in fact, minor increases in transaction costs produce multiplier effects on the economy and property rights and as a consequence – demand for the state.

    This argument goes back to one of the fallacies of introspection: which ‘man’ is ‘man’? Is he the superpredator that must be domesticated? The rational actor that we must limit to productive ends? The peaceful cooperator that was oppressed by the evolution of government or the state? Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau?

    Must we use authority(hobbes), markets(locke), or caretaking(rousseau) to construct our society for most optimum ends?

    or is it, as I have proposed, that man is a rational actor and that through domestication (eugenic reproduction by market means) we have limited the pool of humans to those that can function within the market order?

    We make use of KIN SELECTION in the pursuit of opportunities, NORMATIVE ostracization as a means of depriving others of opportunities , and CRIMINAL prosecution in order to punish them for violations, and WAR when all else fails.

    Because we must do so.

    only children or those with the minds of children seek monopoly solutions. There are three methods of coercion: violence and its threat, remuneration/deprivation of opportunity, and rallying/shaming.

    Lose any one and you merely open the door for predation by that means.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 19:20:00 UTC

  • Addressing Gender/Class/Tribe/Race distributions as need for different instituti

    Addressing Gender/Class/Tribe/Race distributions as need for different institutions avoids racist criticism. @Madisox #NewRight alt-right

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-01 17:02:29 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815604118442115073

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815584677163634688

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Madisox

    The great topic the alt-right still has never properly covered: Class. It’s not just economic, it goes deep- very deep.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815584677163634688

  • Monopolistic definitions of man, lead to monopoly governments, economies, and po

    Monopolistic definitions of man, lead to monopoly governments, economies, and polities. Classes = Institution Diversity

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-01 15:49:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815585806123417600

    Reply addressees: @Madisox

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815584737507102721

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Madisox

    @curtdoolittle https://t.co/S14XPUUyrZ

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815584737507102721

  • Correct. Class: Genetic->Reproductive ->Social->Economic ->Political. Genders, C

    Correct. Class: Genetic->Reproductive ->Social->Economic ->Political. Genders, Classes, Races exist. Govern with humans that EXIST.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-01 15:48:27 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815585486823636992

    Reply addressees: @Madisox

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815584737507102721

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Madisox

    @curtdoolittle https://t.co/S14XPUUyrZ

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/815584737507102721

  • Addressing Gender/Class/Tribe/Race distributions as need for different instituti

    Addressing Gender/Class/Tribe/Race distributions as need for different institutions avoids racist criticism. @Madisox #NewRight alt-right

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-01 12:02:00 UTC

  • Classes: Genetic ->Reproductive ->Social ->Economic ->Political. Genders, Classe

    Classes: Genetic ->Reproductive ->Social ->Economic ->Political.

    Genders, Classes, Tribes, and Races exist.

    Govern with humans that EXIST.

    Monopolistic definitions of man, lead to monopoly governments, economies, and polities – whereas Classes = Institution Diversity that suits the needs of groups: CLASSES.

    Lying about the nature of man in order to justify your preferred social and political order is just another form of using the state’s violence for the purpose of obtaining and holding the power of one class over those other classes.

    If we govern (limit one another) with the people we actually have, using the methods that each of those people actually need, without imposing costs upon one another, that will result in a market for polities (groups), institutions (processes), and government (commons) that suit each of us.

    Monopolies are bad in every context. Especially in politics.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-01 11:03:00 UTC

  • “Is market government just a foreign concept to ancaps or do they just think eve

    —“Is market government just a foreign concept to ancaps or do they just think every government is inherently an extra-market/bureaucratic entity?”—

    1) ancap = social reject = avoider-of-commons, and market government exists for the purposes of making commons.

    2) ancap term ‘government’ is unclear, just as ancap term ‘state’ is unclear, just as the demarcation between law (discovered), regulation (theorized), and legislation (command) is unclear.

    3) Ancaps practice a great deal of conflation so that they cannot comprehend market government as consisting in an institutional (constitutional) market for the production of voluntary commons under rule of natural law. And even if they could comprehend it, they couldn’t comprehend a market for dissent (a prohibition on contracts that violate law) versus assent (majority rule).

    4) So their ‘imprecise language’ lets them think they know what they’re talking about – when they don’t.

    MARKET GOVT

    1) sovereignty

    2) rule of natural law

    3) distribution of proceeds (revenues) from the market (polity) by some method or other (equal, or by contribution, etc).

    4) contracts not legislation.

    5) all contracts assent (pass) unless they do not survive dissent (challenge under natural law) including requirement for strict construction.

    In other words the end of monopoly determination of commons.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-30 11:59:00 UTC