Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • 1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I k

    1) Every definition of capitalism vs socialism that I know of, and as far as I know, the very definition of the terms, is that of ownership. So as we say ‘word games’ are just that, and nothing more.

    2) interest is necessary for the purpose of intertemporal measurement of theories of production distribution and trade. It is possible to argue that under fiat currency interest on consumption does not fulfill this function, and that we should, if possible, seek to eliminate interest on end point (consumer) consumption. However without interest we cannot know if we created or destroyed capital (time).

    3) Marxists are wrong with the labor theory of value – labor (transformation) is effectively valueless, and it is the organization of production with or without labor that provides the multiples, and only voluntary exchange in the market that determines whether such hypothesized value was created..

    4) Socialist are wrong that (a) competitive production distribution and trade can be organized such that it supports any given scheme of production, (b) that people will do more than devote the minimum time and effort to production distribution and trade (c) that black markets will replace bad decisions, (d) that corruption is a given and funded by socialist means of production, (e) that any and all such attempts must of logical necessity fail.

    5) Social democrats have finally realized that the result of their organizations is the loss of intertemporal incentive and therefore population necessary to preserve intertemporal transfers.

    6) Keynesians have finally realized that their inflation effectively loses all productivity gains, and that the austrian predictions were correct that each attempt to suppress a correction only exacerbates the consequent corrections.

    7) All monetarists have learned that the presumption of an infinite ability to inflate and therefore eliminate debt is only as true as trading partners tolerance for the calculability of contracts, and the predictability of networks of sustainable specialization and trade.

    So, you know, I consider pretty much everyone an idiot at this point and that while we can cheat a little here and there because of the vast amount of noise in any economy, the logic of economics is pretty obvious.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-05 02:18:00 UTC

  • As I’ve said before, the ratio of police to citizens is very low, and the number

    As I’ve said before, the ratio of police to citizens is very low, and the number of casualties they will absorb before they stay in the barracks or stay home is under ten percent. They are not 19 year old single male soldiers, with combined arms, but 105 IQ working class high dominance men with families, getting overpaid with good pensions – they are mercenaries and mercenaries always fold. In a PLANNED revolution, everything depends on the demands. Make moral demands that solve the problems of political, social, and economic conflict, and those who choose sides will act rationally by those incentives not out of fear and uncertainty. In chaos people will hold order as long as they hold confidence. All humans are predictable. The proletarian anarchists will tie down the national guard and the police. If the working and middle classes are told to store food and water and medicine for three months, they have the money and credit to do so. The underclass anarchists do not. If the disruption is sufficient for the regular military to be called, the financial markets and foreign powers will do the rest. Never fight a battle directly. Scribe the dike and let the sheer weight of the water do the work. With the right direction and incentives the military will achieve in government what is in their and the people’s interests.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-05-02 22:02:00 UTC

  • Gods Exist as Numbers Exist

    Well my view is that we create our gods by thinking of them, talking to them, and acting because of them; and that any other beings in this universe, if so needing gods, do so too, for the same reason they persist among humans: defensive mindfulness. So as far as I know our gods human or alien are a product of minds, which are a product of the universe, as are we, and as are numbers, and as such gods exist as numbers exist, and the universe itself serves as the only creator there is – a purely accidental one. The universe makes gods through us. not the other way ’round.

  • Who deserves to live isn’t important. It’s anyone who doesn’t deserve not to…..

    THE ETERNAL QUESTION? (natural law on deserving) —“how do you know who deserves to live and die?”— It is very easy to determine who needs to die. We have done it for millennia. The only question is that since we have shifted our principle means of predation from from murder, to theft, to fraud, to conspiracy, to financial conspiracy, to political conspiracy, how we will likewise shift our prosecution of crimes to punish the wicked perpetrating the current means. Who deserves to live isn’t important. It’s anyone who doesn’t deserve not to…..

  • Who deserves to live isn’t important. It’s anyone who doesn’t deserve not to…..

    THE ETERNAL QUESTION? (natural law on deserving) —“how do you know who deserves to live and die?”— It is very easy to determine who needs to die. We have done it for millennia. The only question is that since we have shifted our principle means of predation from from murder, to theft, to fraud, to conspiracy, to financial conspiracy, to political conspiracy, how we will likewise shift our prosecution of crimes to punish the wicked perpetrating the current means. Who deserves to live isn’t important. It’s anyone who doesn’t deserve not to…..

  • WOMEN’S MURDERING OF THEIR CHILDREN IS MORE COMMON THEN MEN MURDERING THEIR ENEM

    WOMEN’S MURDERING OF THEIR CHILDREN IS MORE COMMON THEN MEN MURDERING THEIR ENEMIES

    I suppose I could estimate the stats, but I’m pretty sure there is an even balance between the number of men killed by violence, and the number of children killed by their mothers. There are very good reasons women are treated as dangerous throughout all of history,and it was only the victorians and romanticists that changed that in order to encourage the barbarians to behave once let loose in society by the industrial revolution.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-30 18:28:00 UTC

  • Libertarianism Fails But Sovereignty Doesn’t

    LIBERTARIANISM FAILS BUT SOVEREIGNTY DOESN’T ––“How does libertarian/anarcho capitalism and aim to prevent company cooperation? If four health companies decided that they would hike prices and violently attack competition, what would stop them? They are health companies so can’t be boycotted.”—- Quora User Well, let’s keep in mind that Libertarianism is just Pilpul (Sophistry) for the suggestible but morally disposed. And so we can’t take anything Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe or their anglo equivalents very seriously. While their work has grains of truth here and there, it’s only to obscure it’s falsehoods, deceptions, impossibilities and malincentives. Instead, if we simply look at western SOVEREIGNTY meaning RULE OF LAW, under RULE OF LAW of Torts, we individually own some things, familially own others, privately organize to own others, and publicly organize to own others. The only open community property we can seize is the opportunity created by the vast decrease in opportunity cost created by our the combination of our proximity and demand for reciprocity. So that without the state to interfere by providing license (privileges) to families, individuals, organizations, corporations of all kinds, then individuals and groups could bring suits in courts against violations of reciprocity (natural law) in any of those forms of property. As such while governments originally provided limited liability insurance that limited liability to the money invested in the corporation, they also granted all sorts of privileges by denying individuals and groups the right to sue private and public organizations for personal, private, and public property violations in the markets for goods, services, and information. So there is no reason you couldn’t organize a group of people to produce a ‘class action’ against a polluter, or a market manipulator under Rule of Law. The fact that you can’t today, means that we do not live under rule of law, but rule by legislation.

  • Libertarianism Fails But Sovereignty Doesn’t

    LIBERTARIANISM FAILS BUT SOVEREIGNTY DOESN’T ––“How does libertarian/anarcho capitalism and aim to prevent company cooperation? If four health companies decided that they would hike prices and violently attack competition, what would stop them? They are health companies so can’t be boycotted.”—- Quora User Well, let’s keep in mind that Libertarianism is just Pilpul (Sophistry) for the suggestible but morally disposed. And so we can’t take anything Mises, Rothbard, or Hoppe or their anglo equivalents very seriously. While their work has grains of truth here and there, it’s only to obscure it’s falsehoods, deceptions, impossibilities and malincentives. Instead, if we simply look at western SOVEREIGNTY meaning RULE OF LAW, under RULE OF LAW of Torts, we individually own some things, familially own others, privately organize to own others, and publicly organize to own others. The only open community property we can seize is the opportunity created by the vast decrease in opportunity cost created by our the combination of our proximity and demand for reciprocity. So that without the state to interfere by providing license (privileges) to families, individuals, organizations, corporations of all kinds, then individuals and groups could bring suits in courts against violations of reciprocity (natural law) in any of those forms of property. As such while governments originally provided limited liability insurance that limited liability to the money invested in the corporation, they also granted all sorts of privileges by denying individuals and groups the right to sue private and public organizations for personal, private, and public property violations in the markets for goods, services, and information. So there is no reason you couldn’t organize a group of people to produce a ‘class action’ against a polluter, or a market manipulator under Rule of Law. The fact that you can’t today, means that we do not live under rule of law, but rule by legislation.

  • Um. You don’t understand. Law must be constructed in the context of the individu

    Um. You don’t understand.

    Law must be constructed in the context of the individual, because only individual crimes are decidable.

    But legislation, or what we call Policy, because it is only as families we have common interests.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-29 20:45:00 UTC

  • PROMISCUITY AND MARKETS (important post) Promiscuity breaks the compromise betwe

    PROMISCUITY AND MARKETS

    (important post)

    Promiscuity breaks the compromise between male and female reproductive strategies and undermines the necessity of the family as the first organization (production of generations), in the hierarchy of cooperative organizations.

    The French and Italians solve the problem through the sacredness of the family and ‘graceful philandering’ by both genders.

    Whether you adopt the zero tolerance of the anglos or the high tolerance of the french, is a choice of higher or lower stress.

    When we think of ourselves as equal rather than opposites that are compatible, and adopt individualism rather than compromise, we achieve in the intergenerational social order, what we achieve in the socialist economy: an inability to calculate and cooperate, and a destruction of the intergenerational means of production.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-04-29 08:23:00 UTC