Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • OF COURSE WE CAN PUNISH ILES When did we STOP punishing lies in public? (libel,

    OF COURSE WE CAN PUNISH ILES

    When did we STOP punishing lies in public? (libel, slander, duel, fights between men?)

    How much debate was there over the freedom of speech and press? A great deal. Because the lies of the church did good in the eyes of the founders. Because the press allowed the propagation of the lies upon which the american revolution was founded as well as the rational and moral arguments. But mostly because they couldn’t figure out how to manage it in court. And they felt it less necessary to manage in court because of the physical punishments men laid out upon each other such that it was not NECESSARY to lay out in court.

    Now lets look at recent evolutions in knowledge: like empiricism (measurement), and darwinianism (evolution) despite the fact that we had been domesticating animals over 12000 years ago? I mean, its not a very complicated idea. Why did it take so long?

    (a) when did we begin to understand the scientific method, and how long did it take us?

    (b) when did we solve the major problems of the foundations of mathematics and logic?

    (c) when did we discover both econometrics (economics) and statistics?

    (d) when and why did we switch from justifiation to criticism in order to advance science?

    (e) when and why did the operational revolutoin fail in the early 20th century, despite being ‘discovered’ in every major theoretical discipline? I mean, the entirety of the philosophy of language could have been settled, and a century of nonsense saved, and god knows what else?

    I mean, the history of mankind consists of the gradual domestication of the beast man.

    ANd while in history education was the primary objective…. ONCE EDUCATION HAS BEEN ACHIEVED, THEN THE PRIMARY IMPROVEMENT IS TO ELIMINATE ERROR BIAS, AND DECEIT.

    We live in an era where nearly all information is free for the simple cost of investing the time to learn it. The only thing we can do to improve the lot of man, and to prevent regression tot he mean, is to eliminate error, bias, wishful thinking and deceit.

    We live in an era where we have suppressed parasitism (violence, theft, commercial fraud) such that financialization and politics are the two primary means of improving our lot, and preventing regression toward the mean.

    If we have the methods of testing truthful speech (we do), then there is no reason we cannot do as every generation in history has done: outlaw through law, new methods of crime, that man has discovered.

    And what was discovered in the late 1700’s was to advance scripturalism to pseudorationalsim (Rousseau/Kant), and then in the later 1800’s how to advance pseudorationalism to pseudoscience (Marx, boaz, freud), and then in the early 1900’s to distribute the task to many disinformation specialists (the frankfurt school), and then to use mass media to distribute it (socialists), and then to use it to take over the academy, and from there indoctrinate the political system, and the buy offf the polity with debt, producing the upcoming crash to end all crashes.

    We have, for most of human history regulated lying and insult (non-truthful criticism) by interpersonal violence and duel. The press was regulated to prevent its abuse. But then the press was ‘de-regulated’ by the american revolution, and the ending of libel, slander, duel, and ‘fighting’. The cheap printing, newspapers, pamphlets, paperback books, movies, telephone, radio, television, and mass media, and now the internet have put distance between liar and victim and allowed the industralization of deception that we call ‘propaganda’ to bathe our people in information which they lack the means of rationally testing if able, and which seduce those whose wants it satisfies.

    It is as evil as the invention of abrahamism and ‘the book’ – the similarity of ‘the book’/’the pulpit’, and ‘pseudoscience’ /’the media’ should not be lost on the most dim of us. Where the ancient world involved the saturation of the schools with liars, the present involves the saturation of schools, academy, and the informational environment with liars. Our people are saturated with lies they cannot defend themselves from, and saturated witha liens that they cannot defend themselves from. Meanwhile their families shrink, their civilization dies – and a few simpletons criticize me for putting for a rational means of rather simply making use of our existing legal system to apply the same standards to political speech that we do to commercial: reciprocity.

    What the hell makes you think that (a) people won’t cooperate for both good and bad at massive scale, and that people won’t conduct war by disinformation and the suppression of disinformation?

    I mean. You can spout an OPINION but what examples in history can you give, of any scale, that have any substance, that mirror even this one sketch that I’ve just written?

    I mean, it’s one thing to remain skeptical, and it’s another to hold an opinion that is contrary to all accumulated evidence in all of history for all of mankind…. Jeez….

    Color me frustrated with simpletons.

    THE PROBLEM IS NOT COMPLICATED. PEOPLE ARE JUST IGNORANT AND STUPID

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-26 11:16:00 UTC

  • WE HAVE MOTIVE, MEANS, AND OPPORTUNITY, FOR REVOLUTION —“Any people, anywhere,

    WE HAVE MOTIVE, MEANS, AND OPPORTUNITY, FOR REVOLUTION

    —“Any people, anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right, a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world.” — Abraham Lincoln,1848

    Never, since late antiquity, has a civilization been so fragile, and for the same reasons: the inadvertent training of the barbarians in our ways, and the decline in our population, that in the ancient world was caused by the justinian plague, but in this current era is caused by the introduction of women into the workforce at the expense of reproduction, and the consequential mass migration that always has followed.

    Men must invent, men must work, men must fight, women must bear, and women must train, and women must care.

    Without this we cannot survive the barbarians.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    h/t:Justin Ptak

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 14:47:00 UTC

  • YES, I AM CREATING DECIDABILITY USUALLY LIMITED TO QUANTITATIVE, FOR THAT WHICH

    YES, I AM CREATING DECIDABILITY USUALLY LIMITED TO QUANTITATIVE, FOR THAT WHICH WE CONSIDER QUALITATIVE.

    —“My impression of Curts work is that is precisely what he’s trying to do – develop a means of quantifying data that has been traditionally regarded as qualitative so that it can be evaluated more objectively and applied as absolute law.

    Am I incorrect?” — John Derbyshire

    Technically, I’m making it *decidable* by binary where necessary, qualitative where possible, and quantitative where possible. So the term you’re looking for is ‘decidable’. It’s just conventional that we use the word ‘quantifiable’ because so much of science has been dependent upon scale measurement.

    But yes, you are correct John.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 13:05:00 UTC

  • IS HOUSE ‘SLAVERY’ BETTER THAN STATE INCARCERATION? (YES) James makes an less ob

    IS HOUSE ‘SLAVERY’ BETTER THAN STATE INCARCERATION? (YES)

    James makes an less obvious argument, that there is little difference between slavery under the romans and incarceration in the modern world – and in fact, the modern world is worse. The difference being someone had to take responsibility for you in the ancient world, and the corporeal state takes no responsibility for you in the present, just locks you away where you learn nothing except how to be a better, more fit, criminal, since you have no viable means of survival afterward.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-25 11:49:00 UTC

  • Why Is It Called The Free Market When The Poor Have No Choice But To Sell Their Labor So They Don’t Starve?

    Because that’s a free market. That is all a free market promises: you will not be legally or institutionally denied access, nor legally nor institutionally granted privilege.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-called-the-free-market-when-the-poor-have-no-choice-but-to-sell-their-labor-so-they-dont-starve

  • Why And How Do Free Markets Work?

    People come into proximity with one another to decrease opportunity costs (concentrate opportunities and decrease the cost of each opportunity). This is the reason productivity increases with population density: we save time and expense, increase the division of knowledge and labor, and increase the velocity of trades, so we make the cost of pursuing opportunities cheaper.

    But when we come into proximity and decrease the costs of opportunities, we also increase the number of competitors both for consumption of goods, services, and information, and for the production of goods, services, and information.

    So the only means of pursuing those opportunities is to reduce the cost or improve the product, service, or information. Innovators force all other producers to improve the cost and quality and diversity of their products. Unfortunately it is usually much harder to improve the quality of labor, than it is to improve goods, services, and information.

    This cycle of competition and innovation keeps prices down and quality up, at the cost of forcing everyone to work harder, think harder, and spend more time working, leaving some people by the wayside because they cannot adapt themselves or their goods, services, or information fast enough to serve the interests of buyers given the available competition.

    A free market refers to the territorial, political, and juridical conditions under which anyone can engage in the negotiation and voluntary trade of attention, effort, labor, goods, services, information, promises and obligations, assuming that which he trades was obtained by him by the same means.

    Where one of the following sets of conditions applies:

    The government does not interfere with prices or conditions of the transaction and only enforces common laws of contract and tort. (this is an ok thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, and against fraud. (This is better thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices conditions of the transactions, but forces all parties to warranty for performance, for fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive (This is an even better thing)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity. (an even better thing.)

    or

    The government does not interfere with prices, conditions of the transactions, forces involuntary warranties for performance and fully informed consent, and against fraud, and that the exchange is reciprocally productive, but prevents externalization of costs to the commons by the socialization of losses, the privatization of commons, or the consumption of a common resource without compensation to the polity, and that no conspiracy exists to create an artificial shortage in order to increase prices without increasing the content of the product, service, or good (an even better thing.)

    A free market, may describe any of those different conditions. But only the last of those, I have listed is in fact a MORAL free market.

    Free markets are too often used as an excuse to conduct parasitism rather than productivity, under the ruse of moral pretense.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine

    https://www.quora.com/Why-and-how-do-free-markets-work

  • What Do You Know About National Human Rights Commission?

    It is a meddlesome Marxist Institution advocating parasitism by the underclasses against the productive middle classes.

    The only possible human rights are property rights to your life, your body, your thoughts, your actions, that which you have obtained in trade.

    There exist no other possible rights, since the only rights universally possible are those that we are universally capable of delivering to one another. If we cannot universally deliver it cannot be a human right. Ergo, the only rights possible are non-interference and non imposition against the life, body, thoughts, actions, and possessions and interests obtained in trade.

    So our ‘rights’ mirror our obligations. We cannot claim a right without declaring it our obligation, and we cannot claim a right or obligation that we cannot act upon. Therefore the only rights and obligations that are possible are to NOT DO SOMETHING.

    The primary right and obligation that we have not imposed is the right to bear children only that we can afford, and the obligation to bear children only that we can afford, and to NOT bear children we cannot afford.

    This is the one remaining human right that we must struggle produce. Because at present thi sis the cause of the violation of every other human right: creating a moral hazard by violating the rights of others, by producing offspring you cannot provide for, thereby requiring subsidy from those others who can.

    The human obligation not to bear offspring we cannot afford is the cause of poverty.

    But women will never tolerate this law, and this is the purpose of the Human RIghts Commission: to prevent the imposition of the only missing human right and obligation.

    Do you understand?

    That woman and that man, who create children that they cannot provide for are the people who must be punished if we are to obtain human rights for all.

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-know-about-National-Human-Rights-Commission

  • What Do You Know About National Human Rights Commission?

    It is a meddlesome Marxist Institution advocating parasitism by the underclasses against the productive middle classes.

    The only possible human rights are property rights to your life, your body, your thoughts, your actions, that which you have obtained in trade.

    There exist no other possible rights, since the only rights universally possible are those that we are universally capable of delivering to one another. If we cannot universally deliver it cannot be a human right. Ergo, the only rights possible are non-interference and non imposition against the life, body, thoughts, actions, and possessions and interests obtained in trade.

    So our ‘rights’ mirror our obligations. We cannot claim a right without declaring it our obligation, and we cannot claim a right or obligation that we cannot act upon. Therefore the only rights and obligations that are possible are to NOT DO SOMETHING.

    The primary right and obligation that we have not imposed is the right to bear children only that we can afford, and the obligation to bear children only that we can afford, and to NOT bear children we cannot afford.

    This is the one remaining human right that we must struggle produce. Because at present thi sis the cause of the violation of every other human right: creating a moral hazard by violating the rights of others, by producing offspring you cannot provide for, thereby requiring subsidy from those others who can.

    The human obligation not to bear offspring we cannot afford is the cause of poverty.

    But women will never tolerate this law, and this is the purpose of the Human RIghts Commission: to prevent the imposition of the only missing human right and obligation.

    Do you understand?

    That woman and that man, who create children that they cannot provide for are the people who must be punished if we are to obtain human rights for all.

    https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-know-about-National-Human-Rights-Commission

  • So no. Because of competition, calculation, and incentives. You cannot eliminate

    So no. Because of competition, calculation, and incentives. You cannot eliminate male need to climb the dominance hierarchy. Sorry.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-24 07:28:00 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867281007472463872

    Reply addressees: @BernardoGrando @EasternMarxist

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867251149635805186

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/867251149635805186

  • ARGUMENT: CIRCUMVENTING METHODOLOGICAL FRAMING (argumentative methods)(advanced

    ARGUMENT: CIRCUMVENTING METHODOLOGICAL FRAMING

    (argumentative methods)(advanced followers)(must read)

    THE EXAMPLE: RATIONALISM

    Lets use this excellent question to illustrate how to circumvent the problem of argumentative framing within philosophy, and why I hold such disdain for ‘rationalist’ and ‘literary’ philosophy.

    —“How do you connect platonism to post-structuralism?”–Arthur Calloni

    Do you mean, how do I connect platonic idealism > kant, >post structuralism with aristotelian descriptivism > hume > cognitive science?

    See? I just did connect platonism to post-structuralism. How? a requirement for operations (actions) rather than meanings (imaginations)

    THE TECHNIQUE: INCREASE THE PRECISION OF ARGUMENT

    I view trying to validate philosophy with philosophy as the same as trying to validate religion with religion: ridiculous nonsense: an attempt at fraud.

    One of the techniques I use is to test philosophy by increasing the demand for knowledge avoid the fallacy of relying on philosophy for anything -particularly self criticism. Instead, I criticize philosophy with science, law, economics, and history.

    I test all claims in the social sciences, by natural law, and outside of natural law by evolutionary constraints.

    You need a lot more knowledge to speak testimonially (operational literature) than you need to speak scientifically (empirical[correspondent] literature)

    You need a lot more knowledge to speak Scientifically (empirical literature), than you do philosophically (rational literature).

    You need a lot more knowledge to speak philosophically(rational literature) than you do religiously (wisdom literature).

    You need a lot more knowledge to speak religiously (wisdom literature) than you do colloquially (experiential literature).

    So when someone asks you to defend a position within a context, increase the demand for knowledge by increasing the precision of the method of measurement (analogy) that you are employing.

    And recognize that any question requires a certain degree of information, and any truth proposition requires a great deal of information, if not *complete* information.

    And that in common discourse, most coercion in this world is conducted by loading (ridicule, shaming, rallying).

    In common argument most deception is conducted by moral framing.

    And that most frauds in this world are constructed by methodological framing.

    And that in politics, moral(ideological), religious, philosophical, and legislative framing. But that all of these frames are decidable by operational testing under natural law within cooperation, and evolutionary demand outside of cooperation.

    Language was invented to negotiate, and most methods of argument were invented to lie.

    There is only one method of speaking truthfully: the testimony, in operational grammar, of that which has survived tests of categorical, logical, empirical, existential, moral consistency, and scope completeness – and your warranty that you have done so, upon pain of restitution, punishment, or death.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-05-22 13:13:00 UTC