Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY —“Since you pride

    PROPERTARIANISM IS FALSIFIABLE BUT VERY DIFFICULT TO FALSIFY

    —“Since you pride yourself in being honest, may I ask what exactly one would have to prove in order to fully refute Propertarianism?”—Josef Kalinin

    —(Quoting Curt): “And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.”— Nick Zito

    —“Property En-Toto & Acquisitionism is quite central to the entire Propertarian framework. Provide a substantive refute of these and you may cause a dent. You can find the full scoped definitions of these at Propertarianism.com”—Nick Zito

    ^ What he said. In addition, add reciprocity and reasonableness(rationality) of choice. both of which i think are nearly impossible to refute.

    The reason it’s falsifiable but difficult to falsify is that it’s not so much a model as a description of constant relations from physics through sentience. Three points test a line so to speak, and the more points the more certain the line.

    1) The Grammars(metaphysics), 2) Acquisitionism + Property in Toto (psychology), 3) Propertarianism (Sociology), and 4) Natural Law of Reciprocity (Cooperation) are falsifiable but extremely difficult to falsify.

    Even if we state how it can be done by stating the premises(dependencies) those premises are extremely difficult to falsify. The reason being that they are continuously consistent, correspondent, possible, and coherent with everything we know to date.

    I mean… that was my objective. A scientific language of cooperation (ethics, morality, law, politics, group strategy)

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-09 13:20:00 UTC

  • MORALITY IS AN EXCLUSIVELY PRESENT QUESTION there need be no justification for w

    MORALITY IS AN EXCLUSIVELY PRESENT QUESTION

    there need be no justification for war, conquest, colonization, exploitation, decimation and genocide since moral questions are only relevant between cooperators. The past happened and we cannot alter history, only cooperate in the present or war in the present. i have no debt to the past. you have no credit from it. build a civil society today or admit you cant and need to be ruled. there are plenty of peoples more advanced that can rule if you cant. time moves. the weak are conquered. evolution continues. excuses are meaningless because the universe is deaf. the past is irrelevant. cooperate, conquer or be conquered. morality is an exclusively present question.

    — edit —

    This post is in response to intertemporal claims of debts between peoples who have been in conflict and particularly asymmetrical conflict. In the west, we do not regularly tell the Turks that they are occupying white lands. Yet we tell the arabs they are occupying jewish lands. We tell the Boers that they are occupying African lands. And texans they are occupying mexican (Amerindian) lands. And the russians are occupying Siberian and caucasian lands. And the north and south Americans occupying amerindian lands. And the amerindians occupying the previous generations of Siberians who discovered and hunted the americas first.

    I’ve answered this question before, but in my understanding, you establish ownership of territory by infrastructure and monuments (contribution) not use (extraction).

    otherwise you are making poor use of territory at others’ expense, and therefore harm by your very existence. Just as if you cannot rule without imposing costs upon your neighbors, that you are making poor use of territory at other’s expense.

    So if you cannot produce capital (physical, and institutional) then the market for territories demonstrates your unfitness to hold it. Not by arbitrary reasons but by EVOLUTIONARY means.

    Debts end when restitution is no longer possible between creditor and debtor. And when no insurer exists to enforce them. That’s just a statement of possibility. All else is just means, motive, and opportunity.

    Given: Criminal(for physical gains) > ethical (for interpersonal gains) > moral (for extrapersonal gains) > evil ( for psychic reward from interpersonal and interpersonal losses)

    Moral questions are those where our actions are unobservable and not directly calculable – say, when you bear a child you cannot afford and impose the cost of its upkeep on the community through the creation of moral hazard.

    It seems most people who are commenting confuse the practical and calculable with the moral (invisible and incalculable).

    You might say that it’s practical to avoid offending competing groups. And that the reason for practicality is incentive for retaliation against the imposition of costs upon others. And in that sense the practical and the moral are both questions imposition, but they are not equal questions of cooperation.

    Whether you are immature (stupid) enough to allow your training in jewish, christian, muslim universalism and superstition, and conflate the criminal, ethical, moral, and practical, you’re doing the same things as women do by expanding the communalism of family to the market that is the polity, by extending the market of the polity, to that of the international market of competitors.

    Conquest, Decimation, Genocide, are extremely effective. And the products of our arts and sciences are the products of groups that expand, conquer, and put territories and resources to superior use in the production of temporal and intertemporal capital.

    Always expand. Always Create. Always Innovate. Always Conquer and put to better use – assuming you can put to better use in ten accumulation of genetic, cultural, knowledge, and institutional capital.

    Evolution is the end point decision of all conflicts. Experience is only useful in getting there.

    Evolve or die.

    Eat the Weak.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 22:11:00 UTC

  • When You Criticize Propertarianism You”re Almost Certainly Wrong

    (REALLY) Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’. And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)). And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness. And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics. IT’S NOT COMPLICATED Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations. But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals). Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms. So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures. the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary. So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit. There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*. That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable. The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities. In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade. Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.

  • When You Criticize Propertarianism You”re Almost Certainly Wrong

    (REALLY) Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’. And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)). And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness. And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics. IT’S NOT COMPLICATED Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations. But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals). Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms. So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures. the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary. So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit. There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*. That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable. The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities. In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade. Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALM

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG (REALLY)

    Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’.

    And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)).

    And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.

    And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics.

    IT’S NOT COMPLICATED
    Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations.

    But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals).

    Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms.

    So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures.

    the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary.

    So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit.

    There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*.

    That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable.

    The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities.

    In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade.

    Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 17:08:17 UTC

  • REBUTTALS OF A THEIST 1) Law, particularly western empirical law of tort, under

    REBUTTALS OF A THEIST

    1) Law, particularly western empirical law of tort, under presumption of sovereignty and therefore demand for reciprocity existed before idealism (mathematics), criticism (socrates), justification (plato), and empiricism (Aristotle), and their concluding movement (Stoicism, Epicureanism, and Roman Law). (Despite Augustine’s attempt to combine jewish law’s justificationism using pilpul and critique, with the greek thinkers use of idealism, and abandoning the result of the greek experiment: roman law, empiricism, stoicism, epicureanism, and tolerance for local cult and custom. )

    1) —“Rebutting the claims of an existing creator?”—

    Means, motive, opportunity, evidence, method of argument.

    The motive is to create a lie using false threats and promises to provide the individual with immunity from the labor of reason, accept his position in life, and act obediently to priests, in exchange for monies (and in europe, lands). While at the same time ending the practice of literacy and preserving literacy only within the authoritarian system of deceits.

    2) —“Or refuting the resurrection theory?”—

    Means, motive, opportunity, evidence, method of argument.

    Evidence is that this was all compiled from preexisting myths, and other than some otherwise indiscriminate fellow being crucified for agitating against the profiteering by jewish priests, the rest of the story is a fabrication, not the least of which was initiated by Saul of Tarsus.

    People love to buy drugs.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 14:53:00 UTC

  • WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG (REALLY) Any cr

    WHEN YOU CRITICIZE PROPERTARIANISM YOU”RE ALMOST CERTAINLY WRONG (REALLY)

    Any criticism of Propertarianism (Natural Law consisting of Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism) will require fictions, deceptions, and frauds – which I acknowledge are successful means of persuading humans ‘cheaply’.

    And every criticism I have heard, appears Postmodern (Truth is coherence within the socially constructed frame(paradigm) rather than decidable independent of frames (paradigms)).

    And my argument is that the west invented Truth coherent with reality and a social order also coherent with reality, and that this is the reason for our military, political, economic, scientific, and intellectual competitiveness.

    And that the aristocracy used this invention to profit from the continuous domestication of pre-human animals (men) such that the society produced agency and therefore made the aristocracy capable of increasing their numbers, such that they could continue to fight with their successful military strategy (combining technology, maneuver, and independent creative tactics.

    IT’S NOT COMPLICATED

    Look, it’s not complicated. Mathematics is a deflationary (limited) grammar that tests for constant positional relations, between anything expressible in constant relations.

    But because positional relations (ideals) have no limits until applied to real world phenomenon under intertemporal change (reals), they scale infinitely when discussing the model (ideals), if not when applying to reality (the reals).

    Any set of percievable properties can be expressed in some logic, and our language contains a surprisingly small set of constant relations to test ( just over a dozen), aside from the complexity that arises from the five senses and the relations (Relation (Preposition/Postposition) > Link (Conjunction > Copula ) ) for which english has a host of terms.

    So in this sense our language can express promises of weights and measures using those experiences, and operational grammar limits us to those which are independent weights and measures.

    the measure of Value is provide only by: demonstrated action. Either individual investment or reciprocal trade. Like a balance scale without something to balance (trade) all measures of value are arbitrary.

    So Acquisitionism, Propertarianism, and Testimonialism, with the tests of agency(limits) and reciprocity(scope) when stated in operational prose constitute a grammar of subjective value independent continuous constant relations between existence and actions and testimony, while filtering out any and all subjective values, normative values, institutional values, and fictions – making it very difficult to engage in fraud by obscurantism, loading, framing, and deceit.

    There is very little difference between mathematics and operational language (acquisitionism, propertarianism, and testimonialism) other than mathematics consists of one dimension of constant relations, and operational consists of many (a dozen or so plus sensory and relational weights and measure), and limits inconstant relations ( subjective, normative, traditional, institutional ) values (weights and measures) from the discourse for the simple reason that they are in fact *inconstant relations*.

    That is not to say that we can’t engage in all sorts of conversation that contains inconstant relations that may be relatively constant between members of a polity. It means that in matters of conflict, those differences remain open to analysis and criticism, and their differences perfectly, always, and everywhere decidable.

    The central problem of history is failing to separate the constant relations from the inconstant relations, because until we had international law, most juridical decisions were both local, and within local subjective(inconstant) weights and measure (values), and most legislation, regulation, and command imposed inconstant relations upon local polities.

    In my view this is not very complicated. But the purpose of via-negativa law (and our ability to create a strictly constructed uninterpretable constitution, or even white sharia, or another inquisition) is not the same as telling inspirational stories to the kiddies. Hence why those who rule use law, those who rally use fictions, and those who cooperate use trade.

    Seriously. Weights and Measures. It’s not complicated.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-08 13:08:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. TRUTH IS ENOUGH. IF IT ISN”T ENOUGH FOR SOME,

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    TRUTH IS ENOUGH. IF IT ISN”T ENOUGH FOR SOME, THEY ARE NOT ABLE. ARISTOCRACY IS GOVERNANCE BY THE ABLE.

    —“Do you ever worry that you’re making enemies out of people not worth making enemies out of? Don’t you think there are bigger fish to fry than the largely apathetic Christians in the world today?”–Collin Turney

    I worry about what is true, since what is true is the reason for our group evolutionary success. If something is not true, I do not make exceptions, because i fail the test of reciprocity with those who also engage in comforting falsehoods (the left).

    There is a cost of sovereignty, liberty, freedom, and prosperity. It is intolerance for falsehood. Even the falsehoods we cherish.

    —“That doesn’t answer my question. Don’t you think there are bigger fish to fry? You’ve been frying this fish for how long?I’m not so sure your return on investment is too good, in that you have most likely lost many good potential students who realistically would be on board with most of what you say…It doesn’t seem like good optics if you’re trying to gain a following.”—Collin Turney

    There are very few readers of the WSJ. But they are the only readers that matter. There are many readers of all other media.. But they don’t matter.

    The kind of people that follow falsehoods are not the kind of people that matter. What matters is the people who can enforce a constitution of natural law.

    I don’t appeal to the gutter.

    —“The point is to shift the Overton window, not to ignore it.”—Collin Turney

    That’s someone else’s problem. My problem is how to govern once we have power. That’s a problem no one else as solved.

    In fact. I don’t see anyone doing anything meaningful. And that all progress is being achieved by nothing more than demographics and the duration of frustration by both sides.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 16:11:06 UTC

  • FRAMING A HOSTILE DISCOURSE: WHAT DO YOU WANT AND WHAT WILL YOU EXCHANGE FOR IT?

    FRAMING A HOSTILE DISCOURSE: WHAT DO YOU WANT AND WHAT WILL YOU EXCHANGE FOR IT?

    ( Once you memorize these ten points you can use them as replies one at a time as you see fit. )

    Well before we start, let’s state the obvious.

    1) Cooperation is only valuable until it’s not. Cooperation ceases being valuable when alternatives are preferable. The alternatives are preferable for me and mine, regardless of whether they are preferable for you and yours. Ergo: there is no ‘we’.

    2) I cooperate with my family, kin, friends, associates, partners, and allies with whom I share mutually beneficial interests. I am not your family, kin, friend, associate, partner, or ally, but your enemy, and you are mine until demonstrated otherwise.

    3) In other words, I start with the presumption that you are of no value, or worse, a parasite or worse, a predator, and that your pleasure or pain, life or death, are irrelevant to me and mine I discover some reason that you and yours’ non-existence is preferable to your existence.

    4) I solve, and consider moral and ethical for me and mine, only that which is in the interest of me and mine, regardless of whether it is in the interest of you and yours.

    5) As such I solve only for truthful, fully informed, voluntary, mutually beneficial exchanges in the absence of all attempts at harm, theft, coercion, fraud, free riding.

    6) As such criticism, ridicule, shaming, putting words in my mouth, mis-framing my statements, lying, rallying, gossiping, and threats of non-cooperation, or even open hostility are irrelevant to me. They are just attempts at theft, fraud, free riding, and deprivation of opportunity to cooperate with you – despite my and mine’s lack of interest in cooperating with you.

    7) All that matters is what you and yours will exchange with me and mine that benefits me and mine.

    8) If not, Civil War, Separation, Conquest and Genocide are preferable to the status quo.

    9) Again, Cooperation is only valuable until it’s not, and conflict is preferable to parasitism and predation. So either we are seeking a set of truthful, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchanges, free of imposition of cost upon others by externality, or you are seeking to engage in theft, fraud, parasitism, or predation.

    10) So what is it you want, and what are you willing to trade for it?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-07 15:30:00 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE STRONG CREATE THE PRIVILEGES OF THE WEAK

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    THE STRONG CREATE THE PRIVILEGES OF THE WEAK

    The Woman:

    —“[Some quote stating we are all brothers and sisters and should practice patience, kindness, and charity.]”— Buddha

    The Man:

    —“The greatest pleasure is to vanquish your enemies and chase them before you, to rob them of their wealth and see those dear to them bathed in tears, to ride their horses and clasp to your bosom their wives and daughters.”–Genghis Khan

    The world is filled with all types of men. The strong give the weak the privilege of meekness. The able give the incompetent the privilege of sustenance. The brave give the coward the privilege of self image. It is one thing for the weak, incompetent, and cowardly to find peace of mind in their status as dependents and quite another to claim their excuse for their condition a good, rather than the privilege of remaining the protected children of better men.

    Stoicism teaches action, achievement, and the full suite of heroic virtues are available to all of us, and that mindfulness that insulates us from the the chaos of life is available to us through the pursuit of such virtues.

    Eat the weak.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-04 13:05:13 UTC