Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • POLITICAL MODELS ARE USEFUL OR NOT, POSSIBLE OR NOT, BUT NOT GOOD OR BAD. USING

    POLITICAL MODELS ARE USEFUL OR NOT, POSSIBLE OR NOT, BUT NOT GOOD OR BAD. USING THEM CORRECTLY OR INCORRECTLY IS WHAT’S GOOD, OR BAD.

    All government models are useful for different time frames and different circumstances. The romans took on dictators in time of war, a republic (senate) in times of peace, and allowed limited democracy in times of plenty.

    1-Scarcity-Defense-Authority / 2-Normality-Production-Republic / 3-Plenty-Consumption-Democracy.

    Our desire for ‘one ness’ (predictability) is our curse. It’s against our interests. We become stronger with adaptation and weaker with consistency.

    There is NO REASON we cannot have a rule of law for determining each.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-23 17:17:00 UTC

  • YOU CAN LOVE AND RESPECT THE MORAL BUT MALINVESTED. BUT IN THE END, THERE IS ONL

    YOU CAN LOVE AND RESPECT THE MORAL BUT MALINVESTED. BUT IN THE END, THERE IS ONLY ONE METHOD OF OBTAINING SOVEREIGNTY, LIBERTY, FREEDOM, AND SUBSIDY.

    1) People who don’t LIKE Jeff Tucker have no soul. He’s eminently likable, charming, intelligent and admirable.

    2) People who AGREE with Tucker’s prescription for order are profoundly hopeful in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary

    3) People who ARGUE for left libertinism as does Tucker suffer from both ignorance and arrested development.

    4) People who Like Tucker, Empathize with his hopefulness, but have Matured because of the evidence, argue AGAINST Tucker (and all left libertines).

    5) People who argue against left libertines either fall back on HISTORICAL (Reactionary) means of argument (Fascism), or argue forward on EVOLVING the european SOVEREIGN order by incrementally increasing suppression of social, economic, and political parasitism, via the natural, common, judge discovered law. Because by incremental suppression of innovations in the means of parasitism, we force people back in to the markets for cooperation: the market for association, market for reproduction(marriage), market for production of goods, services, and information, market for the production of commons, and the market for the productions of polities that vary in the commons that they produce – since different groups, due to distributions of abilities, require different commons.

    6) This EVOLUTIONARY means of expanding the suite of markets through denial of parasitism, by the incremental (evolutionary) means of suppression, using natural, judge discovered, common law, refers to NATURAL LAW NOMOCRACY: Rule by Natural Law of Sovereign Men.

    INTERMISSION

    One obtains sovereignty in FACT by the exchange of the contract of sovereignty with ever-increasing numbers. One obtains liberty by purchase (permission) from the sovereigns because one is unwilling or unable to pay the cost of sovereignty in fact. One obtains freedom (permission) from the sovereign and the liberated, by the promise of maintaining one’s productivity without parasitism. One obtains redistribution(dependence) from the sovereign, the liberated, and the free, by the promise of non-interference and the promise of maintenance of the territorial, physical, institutional, cultural, and normative commons. In other words, people are paid to maintain the commons in exchange for access to the market, and dividends from the market.

    7) One obtains Sovereignty, liberty, freedom, or redistribution(dependence) by the following means:

    a) Denying falsehoods the informational and argumentative field, through falsification and if necessary prosecution.

    b) Advocating for Sovereignty, liberty, freedom and subsidy (redistribution) under the natural, judge discovered, common law, and the creation of markets for the production of all cooperative goods: association, reproduction, production of goods, services and information, and the production of commons, and the production of polities that produce commons necessary for tribes, families, and nations with similar needs.

    c) Paying the price of Sovereignty (violence and the fee of risk), liberty (law and fees), freedom (policing and fees), subsidy (maintenance and fees).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-22 10:50:00 UTC

  • LIES DO NOT REQUIRE INTENT (VIA POSITIVA) BUT FAILURE TO PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE (

    LIES DO NOT REQUIRE INTENT (VIA POSITIVA) BUT FAILURE TO PERFORM DUE DILIGENCE (VIA NEGATIVA).

    (important)

    —“Don’t lies require knowledge and intent? A better description in some cases might be: “Hey, that guy produced a false statement.””—

    I know this is a bit hard to grasp.

    There is a difference between a false statement about that which does not correspond to reality, and an immoral statement that causes an involuntary transfer. The first is false, the second is immoral (theft).

    PROPERTARIANISM’S INCREASE IN SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM BY WAY OF INFORMATION(SPEECH)

    I move agency from conscious intent to genetic bias, so that each of us is responsible for warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, loading, framing, overloading supernaturalism, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience, and outright deceit.

    Just as we hold people accountable for physical impulses, emotional impulses, we can hold people accountable for intellectual impulses.

    You do not only lie by intent, but by failure to intentionally ensure you do not lie without intent on behalf of your genes.

    Just as, you must perform due diligence on what another tells you before relaying it in order to absolve yourself of conspiracy you must perform due diligence on what your genes and therefore your intuition convey to you before you spread it and are guilty of failure to perform due diligence.

    So yes, I position lying as a failure to ensure you are not lying (via negativa) instead of an intent to lie (via positiva) because I am attempting to incrementally suppress the most influential form of lying: using the anonymity and informational density of the modern world to commit fraud on political scales.

    SPECTRA:

    SUPPRESSION: Murder, violence, theft, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by disinformation, conspiracy, conversion, immigration, war.

    DUE DILIGENCE: Due diligence in prevention of loss to Air, Water, Land, Monument, Built Capital, Genetic Capital, Institutional Capital, Normative Capital, Market for goods, services, and information.

    IN THE MARKET: Due diligence upon products brought to market in the commons.

    Due diligence upon services brought to market in the commons.

    Due diligence upon information brought to market in the commons

    So yes I am asking you and I and everyone else to increase the labor of policing one another’s actions yet again, just as we have incrementally asked one another to police one another’s actions every time we have incrementally suppressed another form of crime that we have identified by the observation of the parasitism performed by man.

    I hope this helps you understand my arguments.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-21 13:27:00 UTC

  • CLEARING THE MARKET FOR CONFLICT WITH VIOLENCE One of Eli Harman’s most importan

    CLEARING THE MARKET FOR CONFLICT WITH VIOLENCE

    One of Eli Harman’s most important contributions to Propertarianism is the insight that violence functions as a market clearing mechanism for disputes, just as cooperation forms a market clearing mechanism for agreements.

    –“Violence is the means of expressing the subjective evaluations not captured by price signals, which are as vast and varied as those which are.”—Eli Harman

    Define “Market Clearing?”

    The application of a concept from economics to cooperation proper:

    “That which restores disequilibrium to equilibrium.”

    In economics we state a market has been cleared when supply=demand: meaning no ‘problem’ exists for the market to calculate.

    You can solve political problems by agreement or physical conflict. They are all solvable. You can clear the market for cooperation or the market for conflict. Both markets are clearable.

    Via Negativa in Everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 18:35:00 UTC

  • THAT WHICH IS NOT BAD, BUT IS A DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE, IS GOOD. Bill Joslin: –

    THAT WHICH IS NOT BAD, BUT IS A DEMONSTRATED PREFERENCE, IS GOOD.

    Bill Joslin: —“defining by POSITIVA does not distinguish the necessary and essential. But by NEGATIVA – the removal of properties/operations – we identify the essentials because if the essential is removed the term is no longer possible…this is why you say operational consistency shows what is possible.. not there yet. I’ll sit with it.”—

    Bingo. Ying/Yang, Communication/Criticism, Free-Association-Hypothesis/Theory-Law, Art-Literature-Religion/Natural-Law, Cooperation/ConflictAvoidance, Negativa/Positiva. Opportunities/Morality.

    Convey the idea, and then subtract the falsehoods.

    Truth cannot be conveyed or testified to without both.

    Balance is bad. That’s asian. It’s one of the reasons for their failure.

    We practice innovation. That which is not bad, and is chosen as an action, must be good for at least the person who chose it.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 13:50:00 UTC

  • ANTI-PHILOSOPHY Science is a method by which we attempt to remove error, bias, w

    ANTI-PHILOSOPHY

    Science is a method by which we attempt to remove error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, theology, pseudo-rationalism, pseudoscience) from our thoughts and speech. It’s purely reductive.

    1 – Categories are the methods by which we test names for consistency of state, properties and relations.

    2 – The logics are methods by which we test dimensions for internal consistency.

    3 – The empirical is the method by which we test for external consistency (correspondence).

    4 – The operational is the method by which we test for existential possibility.

    5 – Reciprocity is the method by which we test for morality.

    6 – Limits (and full accounting) are the method by which we test for parsimony and completeness.

    Literature is the method by which we construct and communicate fantasies (generate possibilities which we can then test by Scientific Means.

    Philosophical literature is a conflation of fantasy moral literature combined with insufficient testing. In other words, it’s deception. 😉 Hence why philosophers have been accused of doing far more harm than good.

    We read philosophy in order to obtain ideas.

    We read and practice science in order to sift what little truth is contained in them.

    Via Positiva (ideas through free association), Via Negativa (survival from criticism), Via Deceptio ( advocacy without supplying the full suite of criticisms )

    I have seen precious little in philosophy that is other than an attempt to create a literary moral alternative to theology.

    ANOTHER VIEW

    Physical Science (external correspondence)

    Law (reciprocity)

    Logic (internal consistency)

    Accounting (scope)

    Testimony (language)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-12 10:03:00 UTC

  • WHY REJECT AN OFFER OF DEBATE WITH A THEIST? —“You rejected his invitation to

    WHY REJECT AN OFFER OF DEBATE WITH A THEIST?

    —“You rejected his invitation to debate him on his podcast”—

    —“Yeah, what gives?”—

    —“please explain”—

    We can make excuses for justifying our desires by pursuit of, discovery of, choice of, and advocacy of, faith, or its equivalent in the supernatural, or the platonic, or the pseudorational, or the pseudoscientific. And we make those excuses in many ways.

    There are any number of people who I debate on a regular basis who acknowledge that they merely choose that article of faith in all its forms. I choose my faith in my god, and I choose to ‘believe it’ despite knowing with near certainty my self delusion, and the psychological device god functions to fulfill. But I never use this faith in interpersonal ARGUMENT (truth) I only use this faith in personal CHOICE (preference).

    There are those people who are unable to choose not to rely on either faith by choice, or introspection regardless of choice, because of biological (genetic constraints) – the most obvious being women’s various collectivist cognitive biases.

    There are those people who deny that a choice is possible, because they cannot conceive of decidability by other means.

    There are those people that engage in justification for that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by moral means.

    There are those people who engage in self and other deceit to defend that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by moral means.

    There are those who advocate self and other deceit to defend that choice or their inability to choose otherwise, and do so by immoral means.

    Jay makes use of:

    0-supernaturalism,

    1-platonism,

    2-pseudorationalism,

    but worst of all, he makes use of:

    3-cosmopolitan pseudoscience in the form of psychologizing,

    4-cosmopolitan propagandizing, in the form of ridicule, shaming, and rallying.

    5-the ad hom attack to obtain attention.

    and furthermore

    6-he preys upon those lacking the ability, knowledge, and experience to circumvent his deceits.

    7-he has highly (over) invested in the creation of a persona in order to obtain attention, and like all ‘priests’ attempts to capture enough of that attention to create an environment in which he can experience his deceptions as if they are natural rather than fictional phenomenon.

    Any debate depends upon the presumption that the other party can (a) understand your arguments if you can construct them well enough (b) participate honestly, (c) constrain one’s self to that which is categorical, reasonable, rational, and empirical – testable by the other party.

    I have no confidence that jay can (a) understand that he errs, nor can he understand testimonialism, (b) can conduct a debate honestly, (c) can constrain himself to the testable, and (d) refrain from his adopted cosmopolitan (marxist) techniques of ridicule, rallying, shaming, pseudoscience (psychologizing), and therefore (e) debate whether testimonialism is testifiable vs whether his ‘metaphysical dependencies’ are testifiable.

    Testimonialism and Propertarianism are not something I ask people to believe. It is a logical, operational, methodology for testable speech that empowers people to demonstrate whether they and others understand their arguments, and to construct alternative explanations from those arguments put forward, by means of strict construction. Propertarian statements are subjectively testable, they do not require ‘belief’ (faith).

    So, I see no value in the pretense of debate, since NO ACT OF DEBATE IS POSSIBLE between logical and nonsensical propositions.

    And honestly, as long as he and his followers do not trouble me too much, I don’t really have any interest other than the odd curiosity that there is a market for nonsense of all kinds.

    So that’s you’re answer. “It would be a waste of time.”

    –“It would not”–Tristann J. DM

    Then you would need to explain to me why not.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-10 18:55:00 UTC

  • False argument to positivism. The REAL is not discovered by confirmation but by

    False argument to positivism.

    The REAL is not discovered by confirmation but by LIMITS.

    We know something is a truth candidate only when we cannot find a method of it being false.

    The fact that some idea ‘works’ tells us far less, than when some variant of that idea fails to work.

    much of sophomoric philosophy is predicated on the desire for low cost epistemology: confirmation. While science and most advanced philosophy is predicated on the use of high cost epistemology: falsification.

    So the example you give (as well as almost all sophomoric philosophy or religion) is an attempt for those without resources, those without patience, or those who are lazy, to find a discounted means of achieving their ends.

    There are no free lunches.

    Knowledge is expensive. Promises of cheap knowledge through the mind are merely deceits. Comforting deceits.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-09 08:07:00 UTC

  • Joshua Claiming to have provided a warranty of due diligence against error, bias

    Joshua

    Claiming to have provided a warranty of due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism (pseudorationalism, pseudoscience) and deceit, without having done so.

    In practice this means following the scientific method, but the completeness of that method’s practice is the question.

    In social science as in psychology, we know that reported preference data is basically impossible to trust, whereas demonstrated preference data largely contradicts reported data.

    We know that in psychology, they’ve spent the past 30 years trying to escape pseudoscience, because projection in psychology (observation) is as impossible as reported data.

    We konw that both economics (vs social science) and cognitive science (vs psychology) caused both disciplines to reform. We know genetics and archaeology ( vs anthropology ) caused the discipline to to begin (slowly) to reform. And a present we are seeing demographic and voting patterns refute both educational ‘science’ and ‘political science’. All for the same reasons: subjective reporting is impossible wither it be self observation or other-observation.

    So, when we say that the scientific method requires a warranty of due diligence, and that we require empircal due diiligence in particular, then the means by which we warranty that we are free of error, bias, wishful thinking, suggestion, obscurantism, and deceit largely depends upon the construction of instrumentation, and the recording of data that is not subject to subjective interpretation.

    Secondly, the most common error after subjective reporting, is temporal variability or what is often called ‘externalities’. In other words, you might measure something and think it’s a good, but you fail to measure the externalities (consequences) which might be very bad (the energy consumption of producing a photovoltaic panel has until recently been far in excess of its lifetime productivity.)

    Thirdly, one must report on one’s criteria of decidability in the statement of a judgement of good, neutral, or bad. Meaning, one cannot take for granted that one’s value judgements are rational, and certainly not scientific. What are those priors? have we tested them? Or in other words, you cannot deduce from false premises, and you cannot equally deduce from false value judgements – doing so is an other form of reporting error.

    But that is not the full scope we must warranty against. That full scope is:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity)

    2 – logical consistency (internally consistent)

    3 – empirical consistency (externally correspondent)

    4 – existential consistency (by use of operational language)

    5 – scope consistency (full accounting, limits, and parsimony – where full accounting includes deltas in opportunity costs.)

    6 – reciprocity consistency (or what we call objective morality)

    Unfortunately, while most people are reluctant to comment on the physical sciences when they do not feel that they understand them, the average person at every level of society feels qualified to comment on psychological, social, political, and economic phenomenon that are in fact quite more complex than the physical.

    But then this is a cognitive bias we all share. That’s because we evolved to negotiate on behalf of our reproductive interests (genes) and not to tell the truth. The average person equates truth with ‘in my, my kin’s, my alliances’, and my nation;s reproductive interests.

    Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Curt Doolittle,

    The Propertarian Institute,

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-05 11:31:00 UTC

  • WE ALREADY *ARE* THE BEST —“We already ARE the best Libertarians, Conservative

    WE ALREADY *ARE* THE BEST

    —“We already ARE the best Libertarians, Conservatives, and Progressives

    Libertarianism is concerned with access to markets and suppression of free riding. We do that better than them.

    Conservatives are interested in preservation of Capital and long term investment in families. We do that better too

    Progressives, when they aren’t batshit crazy, are interested in advancing the interests of the over looked and under represented.

    We have solutions to that problem too, as it’s a goal of increasing the property in toto of so called minority groups.

    Incremental suppression, full accounting and property in toto mean that the goals of all non Propertarians are best served by Propertarians.

    The reason they won’t debate is that we would expose both their goals AND their lies”— Con Eli Khan

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-03 16:49:00 UTC