Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • JOURNALISM IS EASILY REPAIRABLE The craft of Journalism is easily repairable: Re

    JOURNALISM IS EASILY REPAIRABLE

    The craft of Journalism is easily repairable: Restore Defamation, Libel, Slander, and the requirement for Truthful Speech in matters of the commons that the ‘press’ worked so diligently to eliminate from the common law. If one is accountable for one’s words, just as doctors are for theirs, lawyers are for theirs, CPA’s are for theirs, and CEO’s are for theirs, then perhaps ‘journalism’ will cease meaning ‘propaganda that provides opportunity for selling advertising’. Because that’s all it means today.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-06 07:47:00 UTC

  • What if aliens come? Would they be right in taking the earth?— A right can exi

    —What if aliens come? Would they be right in taking the earth?—

    A right can exist only as a question between peers who are cooperating or may cooperate, or fear not cooperating. Once we are no longer cooperating no ‘right’ exists other than ‘can’. to think otherwise is to fail to mature into an adult. as children we can appeal to parents for judicial resolution (right), as members of a group, appeal to the group for juridical resolution (right), as citizens appeal to the judiciary for juridical resolution (right), and as humans appeal to all sorts of foreign organizations for defense. But when aliens with superior technology come, there is no ‘right’. There is only can. There is no jury judge, or ally to appeal to. Might can make right or wrong, but in the end, if there is to exist ‘right’ it can only be made by might. There is no other possibility. and it is not only foolish to imagine so, criminal to advocate for, but a threat to man, beast, plant, and planet.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-02-01 18:33:00 UTC

  • WHERE HOPPE HAS IT RIGHT. if you have two false premises, but from them draw a t

    WHERE HOPPE HAS IT RIGHT.

    if you have two false premises, but from them draw a true conclusion, then use that conclusion as a premise from which to draw further conclusions, you will still come up with true conclusions. In Hoppe’s case the difference between his opinion and mine is the possibility of the formation of a polity that lacks property in toto as the basis of rule of law. In other words, hoppe’s presumptions are false, his conclusion is true, and that conclusion (property) when used as a premise provides him with more precise explanatory power than rothbard. By correcting hoppe’s premises and using the language of science, my work merely IMPROVES upon hoppe’s.

    Whenever he is talking through a set of incentives he’s right. When ever he is justifying property rights he’s wrong. Whenever he is explaining the consequences of respecting property rights, he’s right.

    The problem is he’s proud of the stuff that’s false, and doesn’t appreciate the contribution he’s made by demonstrating what is true:

    THat all rights private, common, and evolutionary, are reducible to property rights continent only upon a sufficient scope of property rights that will enable a polity to survive in competition with those that do not provide those rights.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-31 15:28:00 UTC

  • DECREASE THE COST OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE BY INCREASING YOUR USE OF SPECTRA INST

    DECREASE THE COST OF OPERATIONAL LANGUAGE BY INCREASING YOUR USE OF SPECTRA INSTEAD OF ABSTRACTIONS.

    Operational language is extremely tedious both intellectually in the effort it takes to construct it, and in verbosity, in the number of words required to state it.

    But the principle means of simplifying operational language is to speak in spectra, where the relationship between the different terms is far more informative, and far less open to misinterpretation and misuse, than any other method of expression we are capable of.

    So learn to speak in spectra. There are not so many candidates as you would assume. As a rule of thumb if you can organize three you have constructed a candidate, and if you can organize six you have likely constructed a proof.

    And as a consequence, you will make obvious that the relationship between monopoly concepts (ideal types), the desire for monopoly opinions, and the desire for monopoly governments, is caused by the same cognitive bias: the cost in complexity of comparing each additional dimension we must contribute to any comparison, and the inability of most people to construct and use such comparisons.

    In fact, this is possibly the most useful test of intelligence: how many causal axis can you compare? I suspect that this is as accurate a description of the ‘every ten points’ of intelligence rule, as is the method of learning.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-31 09:13:00 UTC

  • Q&A: ABORTION —“May I ask what your views on abortion are?”— I have to answe

    Q&A: ABORTION

    —“May I ask what your views on abortion are?”—

    I have to answer this question by starting with the basis of decidability.

    0) My view is that moral decidability is provided by continuing domestication for the purpose of transcendence by the prohibition on parasitism alone. Or rather productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer alone. And as such perfectly cooperated man results in transcendent man.

    1) my view is that the effort to fully employ our women, so that we could increase taxation, so that we could enter the work force late, and retire early, has been self-genocidal. This is merely intergenerational parasitism. We are killing future generations by our conspicuous consumption of tax revenues.

    2) my view is that the cost of raising children meritocratically is only calculable in a two+ person household. (the economics of this should be obvious).

    3) my view on infanticide is that we have been doing it since the dawn of time – by the cruel means of exposure. And that abortion merely preserves this eternal trend. And moreover, I am not sure we shouldn’t do much more infanticide. I am certain that any defect that externalizes costs onto others is bad, and that we tolerate the nonsense of hormonal mothers in more than just births but in failing to sterilize the incompetent, and to hang the (predatory) criminal population.

    4) my view on killing is the same.

    5) my view on conquest is the same.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-28 12:34:00 UTC

  • There no reason for Defamation, Libel, and Slander to cause damage under common

    There no reason for Defamation, Libel, and Slander to cause damage under common law. This leads to nonsense. The only natural law requirement for defamation, libel, and slander is that the speech is false. In fact, I am not sure, given the Cosmopolitan history of “heaping undue praise” that “undue praise” should not accompany defamation, libel, and slander.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 13:36:00 UTC

  • DON”T BE AN IDIOT. WE DON”T PAY FOR WARS. We don’t actually pay for wars at all.

    DON”T BE AN IDIOT. WE DON”T PAY FOR WARS.

    We don’t actually pay for wars at all. the rest of the world does. our military costs are 100% free. Our entire tax base is split evenly between health/retirement/disability, and ‘everything else other than the military’. The military costs are inflated away using the petrodollar. That is how we were able to defeat the soviets and the chinese. By requiring oil be purchased in usd.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 13:29:00 UTC

  • LIBERTINISM REQUIRES FAITH and FRAUD. Faith in the impossible is not an argument

    LIBERTINISM REQUIRES FAITH and FRAUD.

    Faith in the impossible is not an argument. The question is whether anarchy (the limit of rule of law to physical property) can produce a polity that can survive competition in the market for polities.

    (a) all historical evidence is to the contrary.

    (b) a praxeological construction of such a polity is impossible.

    Hence why there is only one possible means of obtaining a condition of liberty (permission for private property), which is:

    (a) reciprocal sovereignty for property in toto

    (b) natural judge discovered common law of property in toto

    (c) and the only methods of organization possible under sovereignty, natural law, and property in toto: markets in all aspects of life.

    (d) and therefore markets for association, cooperation, for reproduction, for the evolution of specialized portfolios of production, distribution and trade, for the production of commons, and the production of polities that produce specialized portfolios of commons.

    All other claims for anarchy are deducible to the following:

    (a) parasitism (theft) upon the commons produced by others.

    Period. End of argument. No further argument other than lie, fraud, error, or faith is possible.

    Faith, like lie, and fraud, is incompatible with reason, science, truth, and therefore incompatible with argument. Error is however compatible with argument. We are all victims of ignorance and error. Ignorance and error are not a choice.

    Faith is a choice.

    CCM chooses faith in order to justify his error and deceit, in order to justify his fraud, in order to justify his attempt to exist parasitically upon the productivity of others that is invested in the commons, since commons produce multipliers.

    Q.E.D. Thus endeth the lesson.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    (PS: yes I just called CCM, like all libertines, a liar, a fraud, and a thief.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 12:49:00 UTC

  • The best way of teaching followers to conduct arguments is to find a useful idio

    The best way of teaching followers to conduct arguments is to find a useful idiot to argue with, and show how to defeat them.

    Because it is the audience who judges defeat in debate, no matter how much groveling and pretense the defeated display.

    It’s more evidence that all members of the (((tribe of pathological liars))) are female: they use feminine arguments: “my approval is desirable, yet I have no argument other than the denial of my approval”.

    Yet, like women, whose freedom is given by the virtue of our kindness, but who can easily be enslaved, they merely demonstrate abuse of our kindness, begging to be beaten, and if beating fail enslaved, and if enslaving fail, killed.

    Violence is our greatest asset.

    With that asset we can create cooperation or predation.

    We create cooperation not by demanding it.

    But by prohibiting everything but it.

    Violence against predation, parasitism, fraud, and deceit is the highest profession of all.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 08:41:00 UTC

  • The first question of ethics (cooperation) is ‘why do I not kill you and take yo

    The first question of ethics (cooperation) is ‘why do I not kill you and take your things?’

    The first question of debate is also ‘why do I not kill you and take your things’?

    The answer to both questions is, “Because cooperation is disproportionately rewarding for both parties – at least over the medium and long term.”

    But if we we lie, if we cast insults, then we are de-facto, not cooperating, to produce disproportionately rewarding ends. So ethics ends.

    And if we tolerate the existence of people who engage in lie, insult, and fraud, then we are not cooperating with those with whom we cooperate. So Morality Ends.

    So, unbound by cooperation, unbound by ethics, and unbound by morality, we return to violence as of greater benefit than suffering lie and insult and non-cooperation.

    So it is only moral that I kill you and take your things.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-27 08:31:00 UTC