Curt Doolittle

Form: Aphorism

  • WISHFUL THINKING IN ARGUMENT IS MORAL DECEPTION? yep. it’s lying. Its a form of

    WISHFUL THINKING IN ARGUMENT IS MORAL DECEPTION?

    yep. it’s lying. Its a form of shaming.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 10:45:00 UTC

  • Society is built by the practice of craft. Politics is a waste of time

    Society is built by the practice of craft. Politics is a waste of time.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-30 05:40:00 UTC

  • PERMANENT END TO TYRANNY The Civic Society. Men will be men again. Not slaves. A

    PERMANENT END TO TYRANNY

    The Civic Society. Men will be men again. Not slaves.

    Aristocratic Egalitarianism & Propertarianism & Testimonial Truth

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 09:36:00 UTC

  • OPEN BORDERS = ANTI FREE MARKET

    OPEN BORDERS = ANTI FREE MARKET

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 05:42:00 UTC

  • IN OUR QUEST FOR POWER WE GAVE POWER TO EVERYONE ELSE We didn’t realize, that wh

    IN OUR QUEST FOR POWER WE GAVE POWER TO EVERYONE ELSE

    We didn’t realize, that when we we started the enlightenment, that our appeal to universalism, which allowed us to collect the numbers needed to seize power from the aristocracy, that we were by consequence, also advocating that non-family members to use the same arguments to conquer us.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 05:39:00 UTC

  • EVOLUTION OF AN IDEA IS DIFFERENT FROM USE OF AN IDEA Just because we evolved li

    EVOLUTION OF AN IDEA IS DIFFERENT FROM USE OF AN IDEA

    Just because we evolved like this:

    Trust->Property->Common-Law->Prosperity

    Doesn’t mean we cant re-evolve like this:

    Property->Common-law->Trust->Prosperity

    Propertarianism

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-29 01:58:00 UTC

  • If I am correct, then there are no moral arguments usable in politics any longer

    If I am correct, then there are no moral arguments usable in politics any longer – only propertarian descriptions of wants and offers. No new laws, only contracts.

    The lying and framing and loading is done.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-28 12:46:00 UTC

  • Knowing is an Experience, Not an Action

    [K]nowing is an experience. Constructing an existence, logical, or mathematical, proof is an action. We can demonstrate them. That is not to say that they are true, it is to say that they are proofs. If we have constructed proofs, we may err, but it is very hard to lie. And even if one does, err, we need not hold him accountable for his error. Speaking truthfully, constructing a proof, and possessing the ultimate truth are very different things. I can however speak truthfully, and I can construct an existence proof, and that is the most that I can do. I can know those things even if I cannot know if I possess the truth. So what does that do for me? I doesn’t tell me anything about whether I possess the ultimate truth, but it does allow me to speak truthfully to the best of my ability – and that is all that we can ask of anyone. Because it is all that is possible for anyone. Conversely, we must ask it of anyone who seeks to place an argument into the commons the result of which would subject others to harm.

  • Knowing is an Experience, Not an Action

    [K]nowing is an experience. Constructing an existence, logical, or mathematical, proof is an action. We can demonstrate them. That is not to say that they are true, it is to say that they are proofs. If we have constructed proofs, we may err, but it is very hard to lie. And even if one does, err, we need not hold him accountable for his error. Speaking truthfully, constructing a proof, and possessing the ultimate truth are very different things. I can however speak truthfully, and I can construct an existence proof, and that is the most that I can do. I can know those things even if I cannot know if I possess the truth. So what does that do for me? I doesn’t tell me anything about whether I possess the ultimate truth, but it does allow me to speak truthfully to the best of my ability – and that is all that we can ask of anyone. Because it is all that is possible for anyone. Conversely, we must ask it of anyone who seeks to place an argument into the commons the result of which would subject others to harm.

  • Criticism and Critique: Control Without Contribution

    [A]re Criticism and Critique nothing but justifications for people who cannot invent? Isn’t that what the record of history tells us? interesting… Damn. Yes. That’s the answer: Control. Power. Without contribution. Control without contribution. From James Santagata [I] wish C&C were only used as justifications for those who cannot invent. But it’s actually used as a weapon, as a compliance technique to force a “validation seeking / approval seeking” frame onto those who do create…By accepting this frame, the creator actually gives up his power to those who cannot create. So what is the most societally beneficial manner to critique? How about this one: “Critique by creating.” – Michelangelo From Karl Brooks [I]n a scenario where the critic intends destruction of the invention, AND the critic has gained superior standing, so he is able to not only condemn but even to vandalize with impunity: What are the inventor’s options besides attempts at negotiating from weakness against an implacable foe?

      I suggest the first option. Option 0: he can take a fraud to court for fraud. This reduces transaction costs for prosecution, and increases transaction costs of misrepresentation.