Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Advanced P-Law of Commons: Responsibility

    Mar 7, 2020, 5:35 PM

    —” I’m curious how P-law would handle the harmful nature drugs involve, without stamping on freedom of the individual to grow and learn from making mistakes… and what about drugs that stradle a line between medical necessity, and potential for abuse like opioids or amphetamine. … And the third aspect of the question would be: what about drugs like psychedelics, that might hold great value for both therapeutics and also potential for cognitive and spiritual enhancement without much risk to physical health? ….How would a propertarian society manage these risks and issues with adult maturity and intelligence, while avoiding descending into the unproductive chaos like we have in the current drug laws? Just curious if an answer to these questions has yet been formulated…”— NJ Gregory

    If it’s not in the commons it’s not a problem OF the commons.If it becomes a problem of the commons then it’s a problem of the commons. Drug use itself is a commons (common property of demonstrated interest) for those who use drugs. If users constrain each other such that the users’ commons doesn’t influence the broader commons then that’s not a problem. If not then it is. In other words, it’s up to the ‘market’ to control its effect on the commons or to lose their commons for having not done so. This is the answer to almost every seemingly difficult question. The problem is the unwillingness of members of risky commons to police their property. That’s why drugs are outlawed. Because they remove the agency of the user, and produce malincentives for the distributor. This is another way of saying all groups in which one has an interest and obtains a value also transfers to one a liability for the group one sustains. Ergo: collective punishment exists, we just don’t speak of it honestly. If we did, then we would cause say, certain religions to control their members or lose the entire religion and all members.

  • “IS TAXATION DYSGENIC?”

    Mar 8, 2020, 8:00 PM “IS TAXATION DYSGENIC?” It is if it increases the rate of reproduction of the underclasses, or decreases the rate of reproduction of the middle classes.

  • “IS TAXATION DYSGENIC?”

    Mar 8, 2020, 8:00 PM “IS TAXATION DYSGENIC?” It is if it increases the rate of reproduction of the underclasses, or decreases the rate of reproduction of the middle classes.

  • Yves Raphael Burri Demands Platonism

    Mar 18, 2020, 12:50 PM Philosophy is just verbal idealism (verbal sophistry) rather than supernatural Idealism (supernatural sophistry). Science is the application of the process of law to testimony about information itself: epistemology. If you can’t do science: descriptions of operations, then you’re telling fictions. Fictions may be all you can understand, because you lack the training to disambiguate actionability from imaginability, and imaginability from existential possibility. Between Yves, ITV, and closing with CurtD.

    —“But the attack on Platonism is just an infantile cope of autistic people who can’t understand the theory of forms. “If I can’t touch a perfect circle it does not exist” well what’s more real the imperfect circle you actually end up drawing using technology or the perfect circle you aspire to drawing. If anything, the perfect circle came before whatever you ended up doing. Existed while your creation exists and will exists after your creation suffered entropy death. Plato was right in the mental dimension. Aristotle was right in the physical dimension. But at the end both are changing illusions and all that exists is the unchanging infinite out of which both infinities evolved and will involve back to. … It’s even dumber to deny the mental realm than to deny the physicality realm. Materialists are no better than solipsist.— Yves Raphael Burri —“I’m glad you’re enjoying the talks. Platonism isn’t my field of expertise, but I find it hard to believe your “autistic coping” theory. I think the more likely explanation is that you’re just wrong.”—In Truth Victorious —“Well the debate on Mind vs. Matter has been going on since the dawn of philosophy. Now PrOpErTaRiAn’s supposedly have settled it in favor of Materialism? This angers me every time I hear it. People with autism have problems with abstract and conceptual thinking. Some people in this intellectual movement pride themselves to being autistic. Naturally its not a coincidence that they cannot understand the concept of a circle existing even though they cannot find one that they can measure. I am not wrong im just ahead of most people on these subjects and decided to force people out of their ignorance. … You want to save western civilisation and are still stuck in finding laws to guide and limit the actions of the Vaishyas, protect Shudras and overthrow the current order by reawakening the Kshatriyas which the “new world order where there is no law of the jungle” has suppressed into inaction. However the most important thing, the one thing that actually needs to be done first is to reestablish the perennial philosophy and a brahmin class that spreads it. Without this all our attempts are futile. Everybody will eventually come to understand that, I just have already done so.”— —“I dont think I have a problem with abstract and conceptual thinking, or the concept of an ideal circle that exists but can’t be measured. I think the question is, if those concepts aren’t externally corespondent, what predictive value do they have in the material world? … If you promise me that a circle exists that can’t be measured, what is the value of your promise? Your promise means nothing because it can’t be validated or invalidated, and has no corresponding external relevance, no?””—In Truth Victorious —“If I promise you that there exists an ideal, perfect circle, that you can reason with your minds eye although yet you cannot create with your body then over time you will get closer and closer to perfection. I show you the path and you constantly approximate yourself to perfection. >>> Upward evolution”—Yves Raphael Burri

    (He means if I promise you that having experienced a circle you can imagine a circle that’s true. It is not possible as far as I know to imagine an ‘ideal’ circle out of thin air without having experienced one.)

    —“Yes, that sounds like Plato. Why do you think.an autistic person can’t cope with that? Is it possible there is another explanation?”—In Truth Victorious

    Where does it exist? I know the function of the human brain as well as the top .1% of people in the field. So I know how the brain constructs the prediction of a circle, that you call an ‘idea’ or ‘ideal’ circle from memories of circles. I also know how why you think there exists an ideal, and how that sense is stored along with those memories. I also know what causes you to believe that an ideal exists and why the word ideal is attractive to you, and what causes you to confuse the existence of such a thing with the imagination of a thing. These are all purely bio-mechanical processes, occuring in well understood cells, faster and with less persistence than you can introspectively observe, just as you cannot introspectively observe how you make your arms move – and for exactly the same reasons.

    Existence = Persistence = Independent of human perception = independent of human existence.

    A circle consists of a mark = a repeating mark = a repeating mark as a category = a category we have given a name to. But that category consists of nothing more than a sample of observations that are not stored in your brain as images like photographs but an association of fragments stored as patterns of predictions of edges in sequence. We can test this by asking you to draw what you think you imagine. Learning to draw teaches you the scale of illusion of memory just as writing down your prediction of the next few days varies from what you actually do. Thoughts and ideas are constructed and reconstructed in real time by every rehearsal (repetition). The capacity of humans to identify shapes exists The capacity of humans to draw circles exists. The memory of circles exists. The contract for shared experience with others exists. The name of that shared experience we call circles with others exists. That’s all. We are often confused by basic geometric shapes and basic numbers because of their scale independence. We do not make the same mistake with other referencts because they fail at scale independence. The same is true for actionability or many other human traits. But these are just cognitive biases that we fail to test. BTW: When you use the term ‘autistic’ to refer to ‘analytic’ you don’t understand what it means. It means we have greater ability to distinguish between sensation, intuition, emotion, imagination, and observation just like we have greater ability to DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EVERYTHING ELSE. That’s what a male brain does: compartmentalize. This is why men make better political decisions, make better group observations and women make better individual decision and individual observations. Analytic = break into component parts – which is where tool making comes from. We also know that the female brain cannot compartmentalize or deconflate – especially the difference between desirability and truth. I understand that humans vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive traits, but less so in male and female intuitionistic traits. Here is the reality: you want to desperately rely on intuition and imagination and not measurement and reason. the question is why do you so desperately wish to? The answer is in the structure of your brain, and the training of your brain. The biological revolution of Watson and Crick, the technological revolution of Babbage and Turing, Darwinian revolution and the19th century scientific revolution, the american constitution, smith, locke, hume’s british enlightenment, the english constitution, the magna carta, the traditional laws of the european peoples, the works of aristotle, democritus, and archimedes – were tediously analytic documents. There is no evidence that POLITICAL ORDER requires anything other than science, economics, and law. There is evidence that the female and adolescent mind needs literature, and the child mind needs mythos and fables. The fact that these demands reflect the lateral and longitudinal organization of the brain is rather obvious. The fact that we can train children into adolescents, adolescents into adults at increasing costs is what it is: a matter of cost in relation to stage of development, and limit of possible development (intelligence, conscientiousness).

  • Yves Raphael Burri Demands Platonism

    Mar 18, 2020, 12:50 PM Philosophy is just verbal idealism (verbal sophistry) rather than supernatural Idealism (supernatural sophistry). Science is the application of the process of law to testimony about information itself: epistemology. If you can’t do science: descriptions of operations, then you’re telling fictions. Fictions may be all you can understand, because you lack the training to disambiguate actionability from imaginability, and imaginability from existential possibility. Between Yves, ITV, and closing with CurtD.

    —“But the attack on Platonism is just an infantile cope of autistic people who can’t understand the theory of forms. “If I can’t touch a perfect circle it does not exist” well what’s more real the imperfect circle you actually end up drawing using technology or the perfect circle you aspire to drawing. If anything, the perfect circle came before whatever you ended up doing. Existed while your creation exists and will exists after your creation suffered entropy death. Plato was right in the mental dimension. Aristotle was right in the physical dimension. But at the end both are changing illusions and all that exists is the unchanging infinite out of which both infinities evolved and will involve back to. … It’s even dumber to deny the mental realm than to deny the physicality realm. Materialists are no better than solipsist.— Yves Raphael Burri —“I’m glad you’re enjoying the talks. Platonism isn’t my field of expertise, but I find it hard to believe your “autistic coping” theory. I think the more likely explanation is that you’re just wrong.”—In Truth Victorious —“Well the debate on Mind vs. Matter has been going on since the dawn of philosophy. Now PrOpErTaRiAn’s supposedly have settled it in favor of Materialism? This angers me every time I hear it. People with autism have problems with abstract and conceptual thinking. Some people in this intellectual movement pride themselves to being autistic. Naturally its not a coincidence that they cannot understand the concept of a circle existing even though they cannot find one that they can measure. I am not wrong im just ahead of most people on these subjects and decided to force people out of their ignorance. … You want to save western civilisation and are still stuck in finding laws to guide and limit the actions of the Vaishyas, protect Shudras and overthrow the current order by reawakening the Kshatriyas which the “new world order where there is no law of the jungle” has suppressed into inaction. However the most important thing, the one thing that actually needs to be done first is to reestablish the perennial philosophy and a brahmin class that spreads it. Without this all our attempts are futile. Everybody will eventually come to understand that, I just have already done so.”— —“I dont think I have a problem with abstract and conceptual thinking, or the concept of an ideal circle that exists but can’t be measured. I think the question is, if those concepts aren’t externally corespondent, what predictive value do they have in the material world? … If you promise me that a circle exists that can’t be measured, what is the value of your promise? Your promise means nothing because it can’t be validated or invalidated, and has no corresponding external relevance, no?””—In Truth Victorious —“If I promise you that there exists an ideal, perfect circle, that you can reason with your minds eye although yet you cannot create with your body then over time you will get closer and closer to perfection. I show you the path and you constantly approximate yourself to perfection. >>> Upward evolution”—Yves Raphael Burri

    (He means if I promise you that having experienced a circle you can imagine a circle that’s true. It is not possible as far as I know to imagine an ‘ideal’ circle out of thin air without having experienced one.)

    —“Yes, that sounds like Plato. Why do you think.an autistic person can’t cope with that? Is it possible there is another explanation?”—In Truth Victorious

    Where does it exist? I know the function of the human brain as well as the top .1% of people in the field. So I know how the brain constructs the prediction of a circle, that you call an ‘idea’ or ‘ideal’ circle from memories of circles. I also know how why you think there exists an ideal, and how that sense is stored along with those memories. I also know what causes you to believe that an ideal exists and why the word ideal is attractive to you, and what causes you to confuse the existence of such a thing with the imagination of a thing. These are all purely bio-mechanical processes, occuring in well understood cells, faster and with less persistence than you can introspectively observe, just as you cannot introspectively observe how you make your arms move – and for exactly the same reasons.

    Existence = Persistence = Independent of human perception = independent of human existence.

    A circle consists of a mark = a repeating mark = a repeating mark as a category = a category we have given a name to. But that category consists of nothing more than a sample of observations that are not stored in your brain as images like photographs but an association of fragments stored as patterns of predictions of edges in sequence. We can test this by asking you to draw what you think you imagine. Learning to draw teaches you the scale of illusion of memory just as writing down your prediction of the next few days varies from what you actually do. Thoughts and ideas are constructed and reconstructed in real time by every rehearsal (repetition). The capacity of humans to identify shapes exists The capacity of humans to draw circles exists. The memory of circles exists. The contract for shared experience with others exists. The name of that shared experience we call circles with others exists. That’s all. We are often confused by basic geometric shapes and basic numbers because of their scale independence. We do not make the same mistake with other referencts because they fail at scale independence. The same is true for actionability or many other human traits. But these are just cognitive biases that we fail to test. BTW: When you use the term ‘autistic’ to refer to ‘analytic’ you don’t understand what it means. It means we have greater ability to distinguish between sensation, intuition, emotion, imagination, and observation just like we have greater ability to DISTINGUISH BETWEEN EVERYTHING ELSE. That’s what a male brain does: compartmentalize. This is why men make better political decisions, make better group observations and women make better individual decision and individual observations. Analytic = break into component parts – which is where tool making comes from. We also know that the female brain cannot compartmentalize or deconflate – especially the difference between desirability and truth. I understand that humans vary in the distribution of male and female cognitive traits, but less so in male and female intuitionistic traits. Here is the reality: you want to desperately rely on intuition and imagination and not measurement and reason. the question is why do you so desperately wish to? The answer is in the structure of your brain, and the training of your brain. The biological revolution of Watson and Crick, the technological revolution of Babbage and Turing, Darwinian revolution and the19th century scientific revolution, the american constitution, smith, locke, hume’s british enlightenment, the english constitution, the magna carta, the traditional laws of the european peoples, the works of aristotle, democritus, and archimedes – were tediously analytic documents. There is no evidence that POLITICAL ORDER requires anything other than science, economics, and law. There is evidence that the female and adolescent mind needs literature, and the child mind needs mythos and fables. The fact that these demands reflect the lateral and longitudinal organization of the brain is rather obvious. The fact that we can train children into adolescents, adolescents into adults at increasing costs is what it is: a matter of cost in relation to stage of development, and limit of possible development (intelligence, conscientiousness).

  • Stop the Libertarian Lie

    Mar 23, 2020, 12:59 PM You can have a natural interest in your children. You can have a demonstrated interest in yourself, and in your children. If you claim self ownership you are confusing OWNERSHIP with NATURAL INTEREST and DEMONSTRATED INTEREST. You can have a natural interest in something. You can have a demonstrated interest in something, You can possess something, You can defend it yourself, or with other by normative means, or with a polity by institutional means. But to OWN a thing requires INSTITUTIONS that insure your control over it by the organized application of violenc. Libertarian pilpul conflates demand for, with existence of, in order to avoid starting with the first cause of sovereignty and reciprocity by the necessity of defense. You cannot magically impose fantasy on others. You must CONSTRUCT the institution of property and property rights by reciprocal defense. There are no existential ‘rights’. Only demand for them. They are created by the organized application of violence to defend them. Why would slaves not rely on the organized application of violence instead of idealisms out of ether and the threat of ostracization? Because they are powerless and poor. Why would aristocracy state the truth: property and property rights are organized application of violence? Because they are powerful and not poor. STOP THE LIBERTARIAN LIE DISAMBUGUATION?

    ignorance > opportunity > natural interest > demonstrated interest or not > possession (or not) > property (norm) or not > property rights (institutions) or not.

    All libertarian thought is lying to avoid the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity so that libertarians can escape responsibility and liability FOR OTHERS. It’s all pilpul. It’s all using platonism (ideal terms, out of thin air) without accounting for causality.

  • Stop the Libertarian Lie

    Mar 23, 2020, 12:59 PM You can have a natural interest in your children. You can have a demonstrated interest in yourself, and in your children. If you claim self ownership you are confusing OWNERSHIP with NATURAL INTEREST and DEMONSTRATED INTEREST. You can have a natural interest in something. You can have a demonstrated interest in something, You can possess something, You can defend it yourself, or with other by normative means, or with a polity by institutional means. But to OWN a thing requires INSTITUTIONS that insure your control over it by the organized application of violenc. Libertarian pilpul conflates demand for, with existence of, in order to avoid starting with the first cause of sovereignty and reciprocity by the necessity of defense. You cannot magically impose fantasy on others. You must CONSTRUCT the institution of property and property rights by reciprocal defense. There are no existential ‘rights’. Only demand for them. They are created by the organized application of violence to defend them. Why would slaves not rely on the organized application of violence instead of idealisms out of ether and the threat of ostracization? Because they are powerless and poor. Why would aristocracy state the truth: property and property rights are organized application of violence? Because they are powerful and not poor. STOP THE LIBERTARIAN LIE DISAMBUGUATION?

    ignorance > opportunity > natural interest > demonstrated interest or not > possession (or not) > property (norm) or not > property rights (institutions) or not.

    All libertarian thought is lying to avoid the natural law of sovereignty and reciprocity so that libertarians can escape responsibility and liability FOR OTHERS. It’s all pilpul. It’s all using platonism (ideal terms, out of thin air) without accounting for causality.

  • The Law on Gouging and Hoarding

    Mar 23, 2020, 3:35 PM You may profit from superior achievement in seizing opportunities made possible in the commons we call the market. You may not profit from harm that circumvents the market. Ergo the prohibition on gouging(offense) and hoarding(defense).

    You can clear inventory (rapidly sell out) at normal rates and prices. You can limit sales at normal rates and prices. People owe you the debt regardless of their ability to pay in the moment. But in times of war, plague, crisis, catastrophe, you may not profit from other’s hardship.

    (Reciprocity)Some instinctual immoralities are true.

  • The Law on Gouging and Hoarding

    Mar 23, 2020, 3:35 PM You may profit from superior achievement in seizing opportunities made possible in the commons we call the market. You may not profit from harm that circumvents the market. Ergo the prohibition on gouging(offense) and hoarding(defense).

    You can clear inventory (rapidly sell out) at normal rates and prices. You can limit sales at normal rates and prices. People owe you the debt regardless of their ability to pay in the moment. But in times of war, plague, crisis, catastrophe, you may not profit from other’s hardship.

    (Reciprocity)Some instinctual immoralities are true.

  • Lead Follow or Get out Of the Way 😉

    May 6, 2020, 11:24 AM

    —“Plain language that we can all agree on.”—Stephen Wells

    I’ve been consistent in my position. (a) I don’t practice equality even among my kinfolk – I practice loyalty and noblesse oblige. (b) researchers in the sciences produce research. activists gain status followers and influence by distributing it. I manufacture intellectual weaponry. it’s “your” (collective) job to figure out how to use it. 😉 (c) this ensures you are leaders and we distribute leadership rather than making me the center of anything at all. I manufacture goods that leaders will use. It’s a natural selection process. And if you can use P you pass. 😉 Now go out and lead. === OR By Noah J Revoy === You don’t have to agree. – Lead if you can understand, agree and can create. – Follow if you can understand and agree. – Or else get out of the way.