Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • the market isn’t sufficient for ostracization. this is one of the fallacies of l

    the market isn’t sufficient for ostracization.

    this is one of the fallacies of libertarianism. in fact, minor increases in transaction costs produce multiplier effects on the economy and property rights and as a consequence – demand for the state.

    This argument goes back to one of the fallacies of introspection: which ‘man’ is ‘man’? Is he the superpredator that must be domesticated? The rational actor that we must limit to productive ends? The peaceful cooperator that was oppressed by the evolution of government or the state? Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau?

    Must we use authority(hobbes), markets(locke), or caretaking(rousseau) to construct our society for most optimum ends?

    or is it, as I have proposed, that man is a rational actor and that through domestication (eugenic reproduction by market means) we have limited the pool of humans to those that can function within the market order?

    We make use of KIN SELECTION in the pursuit of opportunities, NORMATIVE ostracization as a means of depriving others of opportunities , and CRIMINAL prosecution in order to punish them for violations, and WAR when all else fails.

    Because we must do so.

    only children or those with the minds of children seek monopoly solutions. There are three methods of coercion: violence and its threat, remuneration/deprivation of opportunity, and rallying/shaming.

    Lose any one and you merely open the door for predation by that means.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 19:20:00 UTC

  • STEFAN: A challenging proposition: a) homo sapiens appears to vary by selection

    STEFAN:

    A challenging proposition:

    a) homo sapiens appears to vary by selection more than mutation. In other words, our genome contains a portfolio of abilities that can be expressed or suppressed by selection. Most variation between races and classes appears to be endocrinal – and reversible – with pedomorphism the most desirable direction in man as well as beast. And most variation among groups appears to be the degree of pedomorphism and the distribution of gender expression due to the conditions of selection in the historical environment.

    b) there is no universally good individual – only a portfolio of people necessary to fill the vast variety of needs under which a polity remains competitive – universalism in values is not only unachievable – it is profoundly undesirable.

    c) everything we seem to observe is that coddling children produces a fragile society, and that all humans and all human processes prosper when continuously subject to shocks. Ergo, good parenting requires subjecting children to the largest number of shocks (stresses) possible followed by periods of recovery. This applies to every human individual and all scales of human organizations. Competition ensures unrelenting stresses and shocks.

    d) High investment parenting may take the form from anything from Spartan to Social Justice Warrior. The difference is only whether it is high investment or not. Whether we exaggerate the masculine stressful or the feminine is a function of the needs of the gender, family, class, and polity in competition with other genders, families, classes and polities.

    e) We cannot know what is good or good for all, we can only know what is bad or bad for all. Ergo there natural law provides the limits within which group competitive cooperation may be maximized because of the forgoing of parasitism within the group. However, this says nothing about competing with other groups. Competing with other groups can be temporally beneficial but inter-temporally destructive, even if conducted morally. However, natural law does not tell us what to do, or seek to create a monopoly set of behaviors among men. it provides only the limits between ingroup members in order for the greatest opportunity for individual and group success. All POSITIVE ASSERTIONS as to desirable human behavior that suggest any MONOPOLY (universalism) actually creates vulnerability and fragility. In other words, it is suicidal. Europe excelled because no one could create an internal empire and end competiton, but instead subjected us to generation after generation of shocks, after each of which we had some sort of reformation that radically revolutionized western civilzation – meanwhile static civilizations that had been wealthier and better organiezed failed.

    f) this is why I would like you to look in to the mirror and then try to learn VIA NEGATIVA (natural law and markets in everything) vs yet another religion of universalism inherited from the middle eastern iranians, rather than natural law inherited from our anglo saxon and prior ancestors.

    The weak rally and shame. The strong construct law and force its adherence. The strong may create immoral law or moral law.

    Only western man succeeded in inventing moral law.

    Priests and liars rally and shame for a via positiva monopoly.

    Generals and Judges apply force to create a via-negativa polity in which markets exist in all things.

    The question is, whether you’re practicing priesthood or law?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 19:14:00 UTC

  • 1) Insurers, not government provide superior regulation because insurers are pai

    1) Insurers, not government provide superior regulation because insurers are paid directly to understand what it is that they insure. Government acts as an insurer of last resort – governing the insurers, not the innovators. It’s the middleman-insurer that specializes in the technology, whereas the government merely specializes in fraud and crime prevention by regulating the insurer.

    2) The market is far better than our imaginations at both discoveries, finding opportunities to make use of them, finding means of immorally benefitting from them, and finding means of regulating them. As long as the market, the innovator, the insurer, and the government all do their jobs, we do not need to envision so much as react.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-02 11:46:00 UTC

  • Nothing Should Be Determined Democratically (Israel)

    Peace is undesirable in the choice between a homeland at the expense of conflict, and peace at the expense of a second failure to preserve a homeland. Jews must learn to rule – including themselves. Christians must return to rule. Democracy – the abandonment of rule – is a failed experiment. We pretend that democracy is a good rather than just the cheapest method of rule with the least consequences for the rulers. So we claim democracy as an ideological good when it is instead – when combined with fiat credit – a cheaper method of rule. And worse, not all civilizations, or peoples, have reached a level of development – either political, cultural or genetic – that is sufficient for cooperation on purely economic grounds and under democratic polities. Instead, it appears, that democracy and economic cooperation are luxury goods made possible by military and technological windfalls, and nothing more. If for no other reason than self-defense, those of us with the ability to rule well – meaning with a positive evolutionary outcome for man – must rule, while those who are incapable of rule – meaning producing a negative evolutionary outcome for man – must be ruled. There is no alternative except wishful thinking. And wishful thinking is found most frequently as the pavement on the road to hell. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Nothing Should Be Determined Democratically (Israel)

    Peace is undesirable in the choice between a homeland at the expense of conflict, and peace at the expense of a second failure to preserve a homeland. Jews must learn to rule – including themselves. Christians must return to rule. Democracy – the abandonment of rule – is a failed experiment. We pretend that democracy is a good rather than just the cheapest method of rule with the least consequences for the rulers. So we claim democracy as an ideological good when it is instead – when combined with fiat credit – a cheaper method of rule. And worse, not all civilizations, or peoples, have reached a level of development – either political, cultural or genetic – that is sufficient for cooperation on purely economic grounds and under democratic polities. Instead, it appears, that democracy and economic cooperation are luxury goods made possible by military and technological windfalls, and nothing more. If for no other reason than self-defense, those of us with the ability to rule well – meaning with a positive evolutionary outcome for man – must rule, while those who are incapable of rule – meaning producing a negative evolutionary outcome for man – must be ruled. There is no alternative except wishful thinking. And wishful thinking is found most frequently as the pavement on the road to hell. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • CAUSES ITS BUST Empirical evidence: 1) civilization was made possible by domesti

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2016/12/_2016_was_the_year_the_feminist_bubble_burst.htmlFEMINISM CAUSES ITS BUST

    Empirical evidence:

    1) civilization was made possible by domesticating male violence and predation as well as female gossip, reproduction, and consumption.

    2) the institution by which domestication of males and females was made possible, was marriage, family, and property – making each individual in each family accountable for his and her actions.

    3) women vote consistently to destroy the institutions of compromise between the genders: family, tribe, nation. Without women voters neither immigration in support of left policies, the destruction of rule of law by juridical usurpation, or the destruction of the family as the central unit of civilization, nor the decline of relative rates of reproduction necessary to sustain the economy, or the necessity of a two person income to raise children, nor the infantilization of the past two generations through extension of childhood would have been possible. In other words, the conflict of the current era would not have been possible or necessary.

    4) feminism is a luxury good possible under temporary economic and windfalls that translates to hyper-consumption of accumulated capital and destruction of the institutions that make civilization possible.

    5) Any corporation of any scale with female leadership is merely demonstration of failure for more competitive groups to find a male leader. Any government with a predominantly female leadership is merely demonstration of the same at national scale. *that’s what the evidence says*. Women are destructive to the collective because they seek to circumvent the institutions of compromise between the genders, tribes, and nations.

    That’s all there is to it.

    That’s why feminism is done.

    Because it achieved in the first generation all that was either desirable or necessary: property rights.

    Everything else has been destructive to the west, and the cause of its decline.

    -Curt Doolittle

    -The Propertarian Institute

    -Kiev UkraineEdit (in 5 minutes)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-12-28 09:49:00 UTC

  • Open Borders Produce Forceful Redistribution.

    —“Property norms define superior and inferior claims. The current condition of the “unused” land is subsidized at gun point by victims of tax theft. Those victims therefore have the best objective link to its use. An open border policy is therefore the forceful redistribution of resources from those with superior property claims to those with inferior property claims.”—Jared Howe

  • Open Borders Produce Forceful Redistribution.

    —“Property norms define superior and inferior claims. The current condition of the “unused” land is subsidized at gun point by victims of tax theft. Those victims therefore have the best objective link to its use. An open border policy is therefore the forceful redistribution of resources from those with superior property claims to those with inferior property claims.”—Jared Howe

  • Application of the Rule: Any Unlimited Organization Will Swim Left.

    ( Ely Harman December 20 at 11:45pm · ) Tell me where I’m wrong. Mixed male/female institutions and spaces of any size under feminism will tend to end up female dominated, or at least dominated by feminine sensibilities, if not female persons. Why? Because in any conflict between a man and a woman the woman will always have recourse to the feminine means of coercion (rallying, shaming, gossip, reputational agression.) But the first rule of feminism is that the masculine means of coercion (violence) are illegitimate, and doubly illegitimate when used, by a man, against a woman. So, if a woman gets in my face about something, anything, and begins to resort to feminine coercion. There are only 4 ways I can respond. 1) Submit. Give her what she demands. 2) Disassociate. Leave. Cut off the interaction. 3) Retaliate in kind, with feminine coercion. 4) Resort to Violence. Well, we already said 4 is ruled out. 1) Results in female domination. 2) Cedes the territory to females. 3) Is not seen as honorable behavior for men. But even if men made the adjustment and began systematically employing feminine coercion, and successfully, then feminine sensibilities prevail (through them.) The second rule of feminism is there are no exclusively male or masculine spaces or institutions. These are to be identified and subjected to feminine coercion until they are opened up to integration. What about smaller institutions, like a household? Well, a man may preserve some sovereignty within a household if he can offer benefits and therefore potentially withold them, in part, or by disassociating entirely. If the benefits are compelling enough, and their potential loss compelling enough, that can uphold certain boundaries. But as institutions are feminized and select for and promote women and effeminate men, men must progressively either accept subordinate roles and statuses within those institutions, leave, or become effeminate. And that diminishes men’s abilities to produce and to bring home benefits with which to bargain for sovereignty even in their home life. And as the relative wealth and status of men declines in society and within institutions, so must their relative status and sovereignty at home. The process of feminization must tend to proceed, therefore, until it encounters and is reversed either by violent revolt or violent conquest. Patriarchy and matriarchy are the only options, long-term. There is no stable middle ground. Which direction we are headed depends largely on whether or not, and how much, men are using violence (including against women.) But even an established matriarchy is unstable because it cannot defend itself against an external patriarchy, (or a sufficiently broad based revolt) while a patriarchy need not allow itself to be threatened by any matriarchy.

  • Application of the Rule: Any Unlimited Organization Will Swim Left.

    ( Ely Harman December 20 at 11:45pm · ) Tell me where I’m wrong. Mixed male/female institutions and spaces of any size under feminism will tend to end up female dominated, or at least dominated by feminine sensibilities, if not female persons. Why? Because in any conflict between a man and a woman the woman will always have recourse to the feminine means of coercion (rallying, shaming, gossip, reputational agression.) But the first rule of feminism is that the masculine means of coercion (violence) are illegitimate, and doubly illegitimate when used, by a man, against a woman. So, if a woman gets in my face about something, anything, and begins to resort to feminine coercion. There are only 4 ways I can respond. 1) Submit. Give her what she demands. 2) Disassociate. Leave. Cut off the interaction. 3) Retaliate in kind, with feminine coercion. 4) Resort to Violence. Well, we already said 4 is ruled out. 1) Results in female domination. 2) Cedes the territory to females. 3) Is not seen as honorable behavior for men. But even if men made the adjustment and began systematically employing feminine coercion, and successfully, then feminine sensibilities prevail (through them.) The second rule of feminism is there are no exclusively male or masculine spaces or institutions. These are to be identified and subjected to feminine coercion until they are opened up to integration. What about smaller institutions, like a household? Well, a man may preserve some sovereignty within a household if he can offer benefits and therefore potentially withold them, in part, or by disassociating entirely. If the benefits are compelling enough, and their potential loss compelling enough, that can uphold certain boundaries. But as institutions are feminized and select for and promote women and effeminate men, men must progressively either accept subordinate roles and statuses within those institutions, leave, or become effeminate. And that diminishes men’s abilities to produce and to bring home benefits with which to bargain for sovereignty even in their home life. And as the relative wealth and status of men declines in society and within institutions, so must their relative status and sovereignty at home. The process of feminization must tend to proceed, therefore, until it encounters and is reversed either by violent revolt or violent conquest. Patriarchy and matriarchy are the only options, long-term. There is no stable middle ground. Which direction we are headed depends largely on whether or not, and how much, men are using violence (including against women.) But even an established matriarchy is unstable because it cannot defend itself against an external patriarchy, (or a sufficiently broad based revolt) while a patriarchy need not allow itself to be threatened by any matriarchy.