Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • How Close Are We To A Constitutional Crisis? Does The Current Admin Really Care About Our Rights?

    You don’t have any rights intrinsically. You can’t have them. You can aspire to possess them. No other statement is true or possible. We create governments to create legal rights by denying each other choices.

    At present many people possess legal privileges not legal rights. These privileges come at the expense of others rights and privileges.

    The people who do ‘everything’ (the working and middle class) are tired of losing rights in order that other people may have privileges.

    What differentiates a right from a privilege? A Right consists of a prohibition upon the imposition of costs upon that which you have born costs to obtain. A privilege consists of an imposition of costs upon others that you have not born a cost to obtain.

    So you must know the difference between a right and a privilege. What has occurred is that the government has attempted to grant as many privileges as possible in order to maintain social harmony in order to maintain the economy and society despite having dismantled our history, our traditions, our culture, our law, and our families.

    We tolerate governments so long as the pain of the status quo is less than the pain of revolution.

    People have begun to care about their rights, and care less about other’s privileges. This is because the emphasis on immigration and free trade, and globalization has put an undue cost on the ‘moral’ working and middle classes.

    This will end badly.

    https://www.quora.com/How-close-are-we-to-a-constitutional-crisis-Does-the-current-admin-really-care-about-our-rights

  • What’s The Difference Between Marriage And Incorporation?

    Legally none. Normatively, it functioned as a prohibition on interference in the reproductive economy we call the family, and a reciprocal warranty of the same.

    It was better the old way by every empirical measure.

    https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-marriage-and-incorporation

  • How Close Are We To A Constitutional Crisis? Does The Current Admin Really Care About Our Rights?

    You don’t have any rights intrinsically. You can’t have them. You can aspire to possess them. No other statement is true or possible. We create governments to create legal rights by denying each other choices.

    At present many people possess legal privileges not legal rights. These privileges come at the expense of others rights and privileges.

    The people who do ‘everything’ (the working and middle class) are tired of losing rights in order that other people may have privileges.

    What differentiates a right from a privilege? A Right consists of a prohibition upon the imposition of costs upon that which you have born costs to obtain. A privilege consists of an imposition of costs upon others that you have not born a cost to obtain.

    So you must know the difference between a right and a privilege. What has occurred is that the government has attempted to grant as many privileges as possible in order to maintain social harmony in order to maintain the economy and society despite having dismantled our history, our traditions, our culture, our law, and our families.

    We tolerate governments so long as the pain of the status quo is less than the pain of revolution.

    People have begun to care about their rights, and care less about other’s privileges. This is because the emphasis on immigration and free trade, and globalization has put an undue cost on the ‘moral’ working and middle classes.

    This will end badly.

    https://www.quora.com/How-close-are-we-to-a-constitutional-crisis-Does-the-current-admin-really-care-about-our-rights

  • What’s The Difference Between Marriage And Incorporation?

    Legally none. Normatively, it functioned as a prohibition on interference in the reproductive economy we call the family, and a reciprocal warranty of the same.

    It was better the old way by every empirical measure.

    https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-marriage-and-incorporation

  • Can Vancouver, Bc Become A New Silicon Valley?

    It’s unlikely. (Spoken as someone who has purchased a Canadian tech company)
    1. Canadian work ethic and 100 hour weeks at startups are incompatible.
    2. Employment regulations place too high a burden on small businesses.
    3. Shareholder requirements in Canada are too burdensome for high risk opportunities.
    4. Consumer banking in Canada is exceptional but commercial banking is like dealing with the government – depressing, incompetent, and ignorant.
    5. The VC community (if you want to call it that) is not competent in tech – better in mining and resources.
    6. The university system has no peer to California or NY/Boston
    7. Canada lacks sufficient population to produce sufficient engineers, capable of taking sufficient risks. At present it takes 500M people in a market to produce competitive intellectual work products at the level of global powers.

    https://www.quora.com/Can-Vancouver-BC-become-a-new-Silicon-Valley

  • WOMEN, AGENCY, AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN More and more evident to me that unless a

    WOMEN, AGENCY, AND NUMBER OF CHILDREN

    More and more evident to me that unless a women has more than two children she tends to never mature intellectually and socially. Women evolved to produce five or six children at which point out of necessity they must approach the agency of men for their children to survive, just as men must evolve agency early in order for the tribe to survive.

    I would myself prefer that women bore six children and didn’t enter the workplace, and that we dramatically reduced taxes and redistribution. Because I care for my tribe above myself.

    Conservative women are most interesting because they possess agency, and often possess it from living in large working or middle class families.

    Let us see if the majority of women can care for the tribe above themselves. I doubt it. I think that what keeps people in the lower classes is lack of personal agency, and therefore they ‘sense’ the world as without agency like we all sense the world according to our sense of agency.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-09 09:23:00 UTC

  • A CORPORATION IS PRODUCED THROUGH LIMITED LIABILITY REQUIRING A MONOPOLY INSURER

    A CORPORATION IS PRODUCED THROUGH LIMITED LIABILITY REQUIRING A MONOPOLY INSURER OF LAST RESORT: STATE.

    A corporation CAN only occur in a state, because a corporation obtains limited liability from the state.

    One can form a partnership, and one can issue shares to distribute ownership in a partnership, and one can create all sorts of different shareholder agreements, but a corporation of any of the three popular types (llc, S, C) differ in the method of taxation, the means of management, and the extent of limited liability.

    in a private law society lacking a constitution, and lacking a state as an insurer of last resort, there is no such possibilty of limited liabiilty. The solutoin is to obtain insurers, and pay insurers fees instead of taxes in order to limit your liabilities.

    This is another example of how libertarian thinkers take advantage of the ignorance of individuals as to the nature of the state: it is an insurer of last resort.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 22:44:00 UTC

  • LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS. (from elsewhere) Libertarians ge

    LIBERTARIANS ARE JUST COMMON PROPERTY MARXISTS.

    (from elsewhere)

    Libertarians get it wrong every day, multiple times a day.

    If you’re objective is an anarchic polity, you must eliminate demand for the state – wishing it away is not only ineffective but childish.

    The judicial state as we understand it, evolved everywhere, to suppress retaliation cycles between individuals, families, clans, and tribes by standardizing punishments, and prohibiting further cycles of retaliation. The universality of this historical fact contradicts all libertarian dogma both about the nature of man, the state of man, and the process of resolving disputes.

    To eliminate demand for the state, one must eliminate demand for aggression (suppress opportunity) AND, eliminate demand for retaliation (provide a means of resolution of differences) and eliminate retaliation cycles from forming (insure against retaliation). People are never happy with the outcome of court cases, they merely fear retaliation by the insurers.

    Whenever we have used competing insurers, they have devolved into feuding insurers. Feuding insurers are more dangerous than individual, family and clan feuds because they profit from it. Organizations seek dominance (a monopoly) and this is where states of all sizes originate: as monopoly insurers of last resort sufficient to hold other insurers (states) at bay.

    This is the historical narrative and counters the private-property-marxist dogma (socialism), and the common-property-marxist dogma (libertarianism).

    (I hope you saw what I said just then. Because that is the uncomfortable truth.)

    Libertarians opine (give opinions) on what constitutes aggression, and despite *decades* of hot air failing to define it, they never seem to determine that it is not the actor who determines but the victim who will sense a violation of his investments and retaliate and therefore determine the scope of property. And it is the community of insurers (the polity) that prevent retaliation cycles (feuds). And it is a monopoly insurer (the state however organized) that prevents it.

    The state overreach arises from discretionary regulatory power (legislation), discretionary tax power, and discretionary rent seeking power, rather than from it’s function as a monopoly insurer. So, the problems of the state originate in discretion and in full time employment of services organizations, rather than direct economic democracy, and subcontracted employment.

    As far as I know rule of law eliminates regulatory discretion. As far as I know direct democracy eliminates discretionary taxation. As far as I know subcontractors delivering services are superior to bureaucrats. As far as I know a judiciary can function independently. And all that is necessary is a monarchy as a judge of last resort, and a military as an insurer of last resort. In other words, the ancient monarchies ran the best ‘companies’: private estates. As far as I know there is no model superior to rule of natural common law, an independent judiciary, a hereditary monarch as judge of last resort, a set of houses for each class with differing interests used as a market for the production of commons, and direct economic democracy such that individuals who are enfranchised and contributing to the taxes make choices as to their allocations.

    Conversely, Libertarianism (jewish diasporic separatism) is another product of marxism and marxist history. And it does nothing but license immorality while prohibiting retaliatory violence against it.

    There is only one source of liberty: an armed militia, an independent judiciary, a monarch as judge of last resort, and the natural, common, judge discovered law, as the sacred political religion of all of them.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-05 07:04:00 UTC

  • YES. NOT FIRST, BUT FASTEST AND BEST All evidence in the Stone, Copper, Bronze,

    https://t.co/0Qp8zizYpWSUPERIOR YES. NOT FIRST, BUT FASTEST AND BEST

    All evidence in the Stone, Copper, Bronze, Iron, Steel ages is that whites were superior to all other races but that whites on the eurasian plain possessed certain geographic advantages that allowed them to avoid developing monolithic civilizations in order to defend against competitors from multiple directions so endemic to warmer climates.

    The general argument is that X civilization did something or other first. And this will always be true of the irrigated river valley civilizations, because of the caloric savings provided by those river valleys.

    But as a consequence whites never developed the ‘bads’ that came with monolithic social and political orders, or intellectual orders, or religious orders. So, while whites were individually wealthier, they were institutionally poorer. And as a consequence, whites preserved a professional warrior caste and dependence upon a militia.

    So because of this constant competition in all walks of life, combined with the ‘testimonial’ epistemology necessary in militia and warrior armies, whites advanced FASTER than the rest in each era.

    In other words, good farm land but lack of concentration of river floods, left the west with institutional disadvantages and lack of concentration of wealth, and preserved competition between individuals, families, tribes, nations, and later states.

    The consequence of preserving military epistemology (testimony: objective truth telling) across the land holding polity, and the competing institutions is *rapidity*.

    Whites calculate change more comfortably and faster than all other social orders, and this is even evident in our very precise (high syntax, low context) languages.

    And it is this organized chaos we call ‘markets in every aspect of life’ that produces such stressful uncertainty in western civilization, and we export that stress to all other civilizations, as we drag them against their will out of ignorance, superstition, stagnation, poverty, violence, tyranny and disease.

    So yes. Except for that period around 1000 between the plagues of Justinian and the black plague (Both brought from Asia), whites have been demonstrably superior. Not first. But always best.

    Are whites inferior?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 21:20:00 UTC

  • MANY PEOPLE INTUIT THIS PROBLEM IN EXTANT THOUGHT… LET ME DEFINE AND SOLVE IT

    MANY PEOPLE INTUIT THIS PROBLEM IN EXTANT THOUGHT… LET ME DEFINE AND SOLVE IT FOR YOU

    —“Hi Curt Doolittle. Can you tell me which types of philosophy I have used in my post? Thank you”— Angela Michelle Joy Stahlfest-Moller

    Hmm…. This may seem critical at first but hopefully it will provide you with insight into the intuition you feel – that you are not alone, but that the problem cannot be solved the way you suggest. And that the solution is in progress already.

    So here we go:

    You make use of reason.

    (Not rationalism, not empiricism, not operationalism.)

    You make inappropriate use of the verb to-be (“is, are, was, were).

    Your method of decidability is called ‘intuitionism’.

    Your terminology and grammar and method of decidability are ‘imprecise’, which prohibits rational, empirical, and operational testing.

    Because you rely upon intuitionism and untestable language,

    your conclusions do not follow from your premises with the degree of certainty you intuit.

    But this is all consistent in furtherance of your objective.

    You are doing what many people attempt to do, which is to create consistency by reconciling the difference between the objective and subjective experiences.

    The most extreme example of this technique is Heidegger who attempted to conflate experience with existence. Some people find his attempt interesting, and others somewhere between nonsense and dishonesty.

    There are a number of current ‘pseudoscientific’ arguments that have attempted to solve the problem of velocity and ratio.

    You make use of scientific terminology and argument and criticize its terminology without drawing the conclusion that the scientific method, concepts, and terms evolved for the sole purpose of overcoming the ignorance, error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, and deception endemic to our intuitions.

    But your method of doing so is to attempt to suggest there may exist some form of verbal legitimacy to intuitionistic reasoning rather than appreciating the extraordinary difficulty the western world has born in order to create a methods, concepts, language and grammar that compensate for the failings of our intuitions, whether biological limitations, cognitive biases, normative biases, and institutional biases.

    While it is possible to speak in subjective language that we can intuitively test, doing so is extremely burdensome. For example, almost all mathematical terms refer to numbers, but other than the natural numbers, actually functions. But to change all of mathematics is burdensome. In every field we make use of ‘convenient’ language.

    The advocates of the extreme application of your idea, are the creators of postmodern, politically correct, feminist, philosophies that use the social construction of reality. This form of language is a rebellion against 19th century science of Darwin, Spencer, Menger, and Nietzsche, and it’s ‘dehumanizing’ statements about man in relation to nature, just as Rousseau, Kant, and Medelssohn were rebellions against the British (and Italian) scientific enlightenment.

    The solution to the problem you wish to solve, is FIRST to preserve the objective scientific language, but SECOND to require operational and objectively testable definitions. This is what the physical sciences have attempted to do but they are burdened by technical language; which, THIRD, constructs a competition between the objective and the subjective frameworks that both provides intuitionistic sensibility and subjective testing, but limits the errors, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion and deceit – problems that our intuitions, and therefore all humans, so frequently demonstrate.

    My belief is that this transition is happening in our language and that sometime in the next century or so that transition will be complete.

    Western civilization is built on competition between deflationary specializations, and this is another example of it – even in our language.

    Cheers.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-03-04 18:59:00 UTC