Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • WHICH PROMISE IS MORE HONEST, AND MORE TRUE? What’s more honest? You have natura

    WHICH PROMISE IS MORE HONEST, AND MORE TRUE?

    What’s more honest? You have natural rights? God made you in his image? We are all equal?

    Or, from a long line of animals you have been domesticated. You can transition from an animal in the possession of other men, to a man who has property, in exchange for an oath, and your promise to fulfill it, in every day of your life, in the market for reproduction we call marriage; in the market for consumption we call the economy; in the market for commons we call government; in the market for defense we call war; in the market for information we call knowledge; in the market for norms we call culture. And if you swear a contract with all other sovereign men, that you will speak the truth and only the truth, impose no cost on any of those markets without payment for it in advance, and to punish all those who do otherwise, then you may too rise to sovereignty, and become man, rather than mere animal. But pray you take heed, because if you violate this oath, we will punish, deprive, or kill you for it.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 16:00:00 UTC

  • THE INCREASE IN MALE SUICIDE IS EVIDENCE OF WOMEN’S ABANDONMENT OF THE EXCHANGE

    THE INCREASE IN MALE SUICIDE IS EVIDENCE OF WOMEN’S ABANDONMENT OF THE EXCHANGE OF MARRIAGE AND FAMILY. SO WHY NOT ABANDON THE EXCHANGE OF LIMITING OUR ENSLAVEMENT IN EXCHANGE FOR MARRIAGE?

    There is no reason to remove women from domesticated slavery if the consequence is their abandonment of the compromise of marriage, early calorie transfer, and late return. If we are to live late and uncared for seeking suicide in ever greater numbers so that women can expand their insatiable nesting urge, including the consumption of our millennia of accumulated genetic, cultural, institutional, normative, informational, and material capital, then there is no value in our release of them from slavery into the market for production.

    In other words, it is either marriage and family before individual, so that we equally benefit from the intertemporal demands of our biology, or we might as well just return women to domestic slavery.

    It’s not complicated. Marriage and reproductive constraint is a compromise. Break the exchange and we do not retain the redistributive benefits of female participation in the market men have made, but instead, we return to that prior era where the market is the domain of men, and women are once again herded for our purposes like all other animals.

    None of us gets what we want. We get only the best that is possible.

    Everyone in every civilization thinks their norms are a force of gravity. But the only force of gravity in human existence is ability to organize to use violence to obtain what we desire over that which others desire – in where there is no right, there is only what is possible. There is no property there is only possession.

    So we can either return to a world of voluntary exchanges from the extraction of resources from our most productive males, or we can return to the world in which our least productive males use violence to enslave and make use of that which they choose to.

    Civilizations are very fragile things.

    Men are not very smart – certainly not smarter than traditions they do not understand. And women seek to avoid that understanding in order to fulfill their urges, regardless of the cost to men.

    Civilization consists of forcing trades.

    if you abandon those trades, we return to uncivilized behavior: force.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Sovereignty

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Natural Law of the West

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 15:34:00 UTC

  • BUT CURT. CANT I HAVE POLY-LOGICAL LAW? DOESN’T LIBERTARIANISM HAVE SOME EXCUSE

    BUT CURT. CANT I HAVE POLY-LOGICAL LAW? DOESN’T LIBERTARIANISM HAVE SOME EXCUSE TO SURVIVE? (NO)

    I think that the decidability of sovereignty forces natural law, which in turn forces markets for rule (monarchy), and markets for commons (government), and markets for goods and services (economies), and markets for reproduction (marriage), and markets for consumption (voluntary exchange).

    i think that if you have sovereignty then liberty and freedom and subsidy are possible, so long as you limit the scale of those who need subsidy to that which does not impeded competitive productivity among competing polities.

    i think if you are stating a preference for poly logical law then that is no sovereignty, nor liberty, nor subside, but discretionary rule.

    I think if you construct a polity out of contracts for exchanges within the limits of sovereign natural law, then you can do whatever you wish that allows you to survive competition with other polities for members — and for tolerating your existence.

    I think that if you do not produce competitive commons than no such polity can create sovereignty, liberty, freedom and subsidy, and I think that no such polity can survive competition for people, and the record would indicate no such polity can survive tolerance from competitors because of the people that prefer such a polity (pirates and free riders), and I think that the only evidence of such polities is as outposts under strong empires who grant greater free riding in exchange for holding claims on the territory in the empire’s name, thereby giving excuse to that empire to war with others if they seek to obtain futures on the resources there.

    As far as I know that set of paragraphs is the end of libertarianism except as cheap option-buying of resources by empires and states of sufficient military power to ensure them.

    Just as I am sure that all Jewish colonies are merely options on using them as tax collectors, money changers, and loan sharks without subjecting the nobility to the risk of disapproval that is a necessary byproduct of taking advantage of consumers by means of interest.

    There is no value in consumer interest on consumption. There is only value in interest on experiment that might lead to cheaper and more varied consumption.

    That again, is an end to yet another mythos.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 13:35:00 UTC

  • NEVER TURN THE OTHER CHEEK ON PARASITISM (LEFTISM) Never, Never, Never, Never, N

    NEVER TURN THE OTHER CHEEK ON PARASITISM (LEFTISM)

    Never, Never, Never, Never, Never.

    If you encounter ridicule, shaming, rallying, shouting-down, or propagandism to obscure an attempt at circumvention of voluntary exchange and to force or justify parasitic extraction, then hit first and instruct later.

    If you encounter free riding on commons, avoidance of maintenance of the commons, socialization of losses into the commons, privatization of commons, damage to the commons, conspiracy to free ride, avoid, socialize, privatize, or damage the commons, or act of war against the commons by violence, immigration, trade policy, religious conversion, or informational warfare – then strike first and instruct later.

    NEVER TURN THE OTHER CHEEK.

    Instead, PROSECUTE the slightest imposition upon the commons.

    This is the most important cost you pay for living in the Eden we had made.

    Every property owner a juror, sheriff, a judge, a warrior. That is the price of Property In Toto: constant diligence.

    And those that do not pay that cost of constant diligence are merely parasites upon the commons that those who defend it have made.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-06 10:53:00 UTC

  • EVERONE STEALS BUT CONSERVATIVES – THEY JUST CONSTRAIN. Marxists want to steal e

    EVERONE STEALS BUT CONSERVATIVES – THEY JUST CONSTRAIN.

    Marxists want to steal everything and tell you what to do with it. Social Democrats want to steal the proceeds of your risk taking and tell you what they will do with it. Libertarians want to steal from the commons and tell you that you can’t have any. And conservatives want to prevent not only stealing but whatever consumption they can, and to direct it to investment in family and commons.

    It’s not complicated. Children are costly, women redistribute, nest, and consume locally at all costs. Libertarians want to keep everything they produce because they’re undervalued in cooperation in large groups. And conservatives try to concentrate capital in the empirically demonstrated productive family, community, nation, and it’s capital.

    The universe operates by simple rules. Humans are simple creatures. It’s the vast network of excuses, justifications, wishful thinkings, falsehoods, and lies we tell that create the appearance of complexity.

    We acquire, and we justify the means of our acquisition. yet some of us are better at stealing and some better at rent-seeking, and some better at free-riding, and some better at producing, and some better at saving and defending.

    And we all claim our method is better rather than a necessary function in a division of intergenerational reproduction.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Cult of Sovereignty.

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Social Science of Western Civilization

    The Propertarian Institute, Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-05 11:28:00 UTC

  • EQUALITY IS AN ANTI-HUMAN METHOD OF DECIDABILITY (some argumentative weaponry) (

    EQUALITY IS AN ANTI-HUMAN METHOD OF DECIDABILITY

    (some argumentative weaponry) (important)

    Yes, men mature more slowly. Yes, in utero, mens minds are less ‘complete’ at birth. Yes, as less complete men’s minds are more compartmentalised. But it is this slower maturity from a position of fragmentation, that allows men to develop specializations and lower impulsivity necessary to form a hierarchical army of adaptive hunter-warrior-tool-makers, while early maturity allows women to develop a larger number of general skills earlier for the more similar role of gathering, child, and tribe-caring.

    All talk of equality is anti-human, since it is our division of labor and means of cooperation across specializations that demarcate us from animals dependent upon nature, to gods who transform nature to our will.

    We evolved to divide perception, cognition, advocacy, labor, and damage accumulation. Equality is for creatures that are food for other creatures. Predators that Cooperate gain extraordinary competitive ability by specialization in a division of perception, cognition, advocacy, labor, and damage accumulation.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-05 08:22:00 UTC

  • THERE IS GOING TO BE A REVOLUTION – I KNOW. BECAUSE I’M ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WI

    THERE IS GOING TO BE A REVOLUTION – I KNOW. BECAUSE I’M ONE OF THE PEOPLE WHO WILL START IT.

    1. Moral men need a reason for rebellion. (they have it: rule by credit, familicide, genocide, culturecide, civilization. )

    2. They need an institutional solution implementable as law, to demand that resolves their issues, (we have it) and to which they can feel, claim, argue, and fight for, as a moral high ground (they can).

    3. They need a plan of transition to the new institutional system that they can envision bringing to fruition. (we have it)

    4. They need a strategy and a plan of action making use of available means by which to conduct a rebellion that will succeed. (we have it)

    5. They need an opportunity to seize under which the revolution can be visibly successful (we do – no civilization in history has been more fragile)

    6. They need a communication system by which to coordinate their efforts over large territories that are impossible for standard police, emergency, and military to concentrate power against. (we have it).

    7. If possible they need an icon behind which to anthropomorphize their actions (we have it)

    (Some of us have been at this a while)

    Sovereignty. Rule of Natural Judge Discovered, Common Law. Direct Democracy over a Market Commons with Houses for the Classes. Direct redistribution of proceeds from the commons, and liquidity from the treasury to the citizenry. An end to Fiat Credit Capitalism, an end to Politicians, and an end to propaganda, misrepresentation, pseudoscience, and deceit in the informational commons (public discourse). And the creation of opportunities in every state by the decentralization of power, and the devolution of the federal government to regions.

    The American Empire was useful in the conquest of the continent. It was useful in the preservation of the British Empire’s patterns of finance and trade. It was useful in the defeat of world communism. But it is not useful in the defeat of Islamism, nor our own suicidal pseudoscientific secular humanism – it is the sponsor of both in the deep state’s pursuit of customers from both.

    We are going to end the empire. Preserve the military as overwhelmingly powerful domestic rather than overstretched international force. Preserve the systems of insurers of last resort. But eliminate the discretion of the federal government over our daily lives. We are not equal. We do not have equal desires. And both the European imperial and American imperial systems must end. Or like all empires, they will kill the host that made them possible.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-04 09:19:00 UTC

  • PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO PAY THE COST OF TRUTH – BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT ABILITIES

    PEOPLE DON’T WANT TO PAY THE COST OF TRUTH – BECAUSE WE HAVE DIFFERENT ABILITIES – AND INCREASES IN TRUTH ARE INCREASINGLY EXPENSIVE

    *Want > Justification > Critical Rationalism > Testimonialism*

    I have found that outside of people with university training in the physical sciences, that converting people from justificationism (particularly moral) to critical rationalism, is almost impossible.

    Yet I understand completely why: CR is a far more ‘expensive’ cognitive strategy – it’s almost a ‘privilege of those with ability’.

    The purpose of knowledge is action. And we all differ in the actions that we need to want to make, prefer to make, and joyously make.

    So the fact that we want, prefer, and take joy from, the action of seeking increasingly challenging methods of decision making, is in itself a privilege of ability, education, and rank.

    Now, try to take a Critical Rationalist and convert him to a Testimonialist, and you’ll encounter the same problem.

    Why? Because just as the cost of Critical Rationalist knowledge imposes a cost on the fulfillment of satisfaction by those seeking ends by justificationary means, the cost of Testimonialist Knowledge imposes a cost on the fulfillment of satisfaction by those seeking ends by Critical Rationalist means.

    Because the Critical Rationalist wants to preserve his discounts on the consequences of his speech, just like the justificationist wants to preserve the discounts on the consequences of his actions.

    METHODS OF MORAL DECIDABILITY

    To Act: Justificationism (disputes over actions)

    To Know: Critical Rationalism (disputes over persuasion)

    To Judge: Testimonialism (disputes over consequences)

    JUSTIFICATIONISM

    Justification isn’t true either logically or empirically – it’s a selection bias for action within normative limits.

    CRITICAL RATIONALISM

    Critical Preference isn’t empirically true – it’s a selection bias.

    Critical Rationalism isn’t complete – it’s a selection bias for action within cost-less (scientific) limits.

    TESTIMONIALISM

    Testimonialism is, as far as I know, empirically true, and informationally complete. It’s a selection bias for action within the scope of what is actionable by man.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-03 09:21:00 UTC

  • THE ONLY LIMIT OF GOVERNMENT EXCESS IS THE MILITIA 1. The only way to limit a go

    THE ONLY LIMIT OF GOVERNMENT EXCESS IS THE MILITIA

    1. The only way to limit a government is with organized violence.

    2. The only way to organize violence to limit the government while keeping power distributed is a militia.

    3. The only way to train a militia is by participation in a standing army.

    4. The only way to train a standing army to organize violence to control the government is to train a militia.

    5. The only way to ensure the army trains a militia to organize violence to control the government is to require reciprocal insurance of the oath.

    6. The only way to ensure the oath is to place it in the constitution, in the oath of allegiance, and by reciprocal insurance of the members – demanding death of those who break it, either universally, or by lot, or by both.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-11-02 07:09:00 UTC

  • AN APPEAL TO NATURAL LAW IS NOT A NATURALISTIC FALLACY. (from a friend) —“Curt

    AN APPEAL TO NATURAL LAW IS NOT A NATURALISTIC FALLACY.

    (from a friend)

    —“Curt: Do you consider an appeal to nature to be a fallacy? I spoke to a woman recently about how xenoestrogens in plastics dramatically reduced the testosterone levels in men, after which she responded with a resonating “So what? Why does it matter if men become less masculine?” …. I am bothered by the fact that this apparent “fallacy” exists, since it seems completely counter-evolutionary and consequently destructive. It is indeed possible that we could feminize our men through chemical transformation, just as we could masculinize our women through chemical transformation.”— (A Friend)

    RESPONSE

    The question is whether we would survive competition from those who feminized their women and masculinized their men.

    And the evidence at present is that women have feminized our men through institutions and propaganda, spread vast increases of mental health issues, and empowered out enemies to conquer us.

    And while a woman may say ‘this is ok, we are no better than they’, a man may equally say, then if they are my genetic enemies, my cultural enemies, and you wold empower them, then why is it that you are not my enemy, and I should not return you to silence, physical punishment, virtual slavery, limited to your home, lacking legal and political standing, and subject the wit and whim of me and mine?

    This is what the Islamists pursue, so if they are no better than we, then why should I and mine not pursue it against you and yours?

    You see, our reproductive and strategic differences are in competition, and we compromise only because it is of mutual benefit to us men, and to our daughters, to offer you that compromise. But if you choose to break that compromise, there is literally nothing you can do without strong men to rally to your aid, to stop us from returning you to submission and slavery.

    So it is not a matter of nature. it is a matter of compromise. Natural Law does not appeal to natural behavior of some kind but of demonstrated interest in cooperating. In other words, it is an appeal to incentives to continue the status quo, or to discontinue the status quo and create another more suitable to our interests.

    Either we are engaged in compromise by voluntary exchange, or we are not. If we are not and we cause each other no harm, then that is one thing. But if we are not and you cause me harm, the you must realize that we are stronger, faster, smarter, more violent, higher risk, and that this world that you enjoy was built not because of you free riders, but because we wished to attract our women and please our daughters, rather than merely purchase and enslave them. There are vast regions of this world where men still enslave women, and the only people working to stop them are white men.

    If I want to beat you how can you stop me? You cannot. Only men can. So will you trade compromise with me, or shall I return you to the herd where we domesticated you, by force of violence.

    But there are no conditions under which we will tolerate the genocide of our race because our women choose to conspire against us.

    ie: natural law = trade.

    Neither of us are completely satisfied, but we are as satisfied as we can both be without causing the dissatisfaction of the other.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-10-30 15:27:00 UTC