Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • DRAW BLOOD NOT WEBSITES I think that any form of Anarchism is a romantic notion

    DRAW BLOOD NOT WEBSITES

    I think that any form of Anarchism is a romantic notion for daydreaming about – but that people hold revolutions for a reason and that we need a revolution.

    And that the only people who can earn or possess liberty are those that will use revolution to displace a predatory state with one that protects their rights.

    There has not be a revolution in America since the civil war, making America one of the oldest governments currently in existence.

    It’s time to have a revolution. I’m happy if daydreamers want to daydream. But history says if you have pent up demand for revolt, then you can use it and change the world forever.

    So that’s my position on daydreams.

    Draw blood not web sites.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 07:33:00 UTC

  • A POLITY CANNOT SURVIVE COMPETITION WITHOUT COMMONS Anarchic polities don’t exis

    A POLITY CANNOT SURVIVE COMPETITION WITHOUT COMMONS

    Anarchic polities don’t exist for two reasons: (a) they cannot obtain or defend territory, and (b) they cannot create sufficient commons to attract investment (people).

    How would an anarchic polity come to evolve and persist in competition with social democracy, state capitalist, or classical liberal governments?

    Anarcho-capitalism was a productive research program, but a condition of anarchy is uncompetitive and cannot survive competition from either Nomocratic (classical liberal middle class), social democratic(representative and working class), or state capitalist(command and peasant class) methods of government.

    I only work with what I can find a method to construct. Meaning, that an idea is meaningless unless I see an institutional means of constructing it. ergo: you can have rule of law, but not anarchism, because no polity without the ability to construct commons can survive competition.

    So I don’t really deal with ‘anarchism’ so much as that I rely upon nomocracy as the institutional system with which to prevent parasitism in the construction of commons.

    We can solve the problem of commons but we cannot create a polity without commons. In fact, that’s probably a logical contradiction, since a polity that can prevent occupation and conquest by any organized group must construct a commons to prevent it.

    So in that sense, an anarchic polity incapable of constructing commons is a logical as well as existential impossibility.

    So please give up on your fallacies. Either fight for liberty or acknowledge your servitude, but wishful thinking about anarchic polities is a modern variant on waiting for the resurrection and second coming.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 07:25:00 UTC

  • DEAR JUSTICES. A TRUTH. A WARNING. A PROMISE. ***Our American Judges have been t

    DEAR JUSTICES. A TRUTH. A WARNING. A PROMISE.

    ***Our American Judges have been turned into Nazi Officers with ‘its the law’ a hollow substitute for ‘I was following orders’.***

    ***There is only one law: productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange, free of imposition of costs by externality, on that another has obtained by either homesteading of opportunity, or exchange by the same productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary exchange free of the same externality.***

    Everything else is literally an order.

    If you follow immoral orders you have no escape from justice.

    Either you adjudicate natural law, or you issue commands.

    If you issue commands then you are responsible for your actions.

    So we pray you take heed how you command our people.

    We are coming with rifle and guillotine, not pitchfork and noose.

    And we shall hold you accountable for your commands.

    I swear upon all my gods, the judiciary will preserve the rule of law or be put to death and replaced by those who shall.

    Natural Law is sacred.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 04:36:00 UTC

  • WHY THE NAP/IVP IS JUSTIFICATION FOR THIEVERY AND FRAUD —“you remove the NAP f

    WHY THE NAP/IVP IS JUSTIFICATION FOR THIEVERY AND FRAUD

    —“you remove the NAP from the class of individual choice”—

    Then if NAP is just a means of individual choice, and not a moral proposition, then why would one choose to avoid moral choices? Except to act immorally? Which is my criticism. The NAP was adopted by rothbard as a half truth in order to perpetuate ghetto ethics.

    It’s a logical box. You wont’ get out of it. Rothbardianism is objectively immoral.

    It is insufficient for a personal determination of rational action. It is insufficient for interpersonal moral decidability. And it is insufficient for a political basis for law. And its insufficient for the basis of anarchic polity, and therefore it is insufficient for the basis of liberty.

    So if it is insufficient for each of these criteria: decision, non-retaliation, and economic and political cooperation, and sufficient basis of cooperation for the formation of a voluntary polity in the absence of the state as method of decidability… then what is it’s function other than to allow one to engage in deceits?

    So the NAP is a fraud by suggestion, just as I have stated, because it is nothing more than an attempt to escape paying the high cost of liberty, through the mutual defense of one another’s property-en-toto from the imposition of costs, by organized application of violence to demand and enforce restitution for those costs.

    So it’s not just that the NAP is insufficient for moral action, it is that the NAP is an attempt both to justify parasitism by non violent means, and justify non payment of insurance.

    That is not liberty. That’s cunning thievery.

    That’s the end you know. You can try all you want. But rothbardian immoralism falsely labeled with the term liberty is merely another great cosmopolitan lie.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 03:53:00 UTC

  • FROM AGGRESSION TO NON AGGRESSION This should help people understand how the NAP

    FROM AGGRESSION TO NON AGGRESSION

    This should help people understand how the NAP was a cunning lie.

    -3) – You can choose to aggress against the property en toto of others. This is called predation. But you must defend yourself against retaliation and extermination. (Usual criticism of Islamists)

    -2) – You can choose to aggress against the private and common property but not life of others. This is called thievery. But you will experience retaliation for it. (usual criticism of gypsies)

    -1) – You can choose not to aggress against the life and physical property of others but retain the possibility of parasitic existence through deception. But you will experience retaliation. (usual criticism of jews)

    0) – You can choose not to aggress against the property en toto of others and by doing so it is almost impossible to invoke retaliation. This is called boycott. But you cannot defend your property en toto, private property, or life from those of superior means who wish to deprive you of it.

    +1) – You can engage in productive exchange with others, both benefit and not invoke retaliation. This is called trade. But you cannot defend your property en toto, private property, or life from those of superior means who wish to deprive you of it.

    +2) – You can engage in reciprocal insurance of others and thereby obtain insurance from them. This is called Liberty. So that you can defend your property en toto, private property, and life from those who wish to deprive you of it.

    +3) – You can invest your profits in the commons in exchange for status (increased opportunity and discounts), or productivity (increased returns), and cooperate for the defense of those commons from privatization and destruction. This is called a polity. (Europa)

    +4) – You can actively impose property-en-toto upon others both to reduce your costs and to improve your returns. This is called pacification. (Usual example is Rome, British Empire, American Empire)

    Non Aggression against property-en-toto (demonstrated property), is sufficient for non-retaliation. Reciprocal insurance of property-en-toto is sufficient for defense and the formation of a polity. Contribution to the commons is sufficient for obtaining compound intergenerational returns. Pacification is sufficient for the evolution of civilization.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-09 02:54:00 UTC

  • FAITH IN PRIORS IS NOT RATIONAL ITS INSTINCTUAL —“The problem with this moral

    FAITH IN PRIORS IS NOT RATIONAL ITS INSTINCTUAL

    —“The problem with this moral and immoral discourse is the following: I act merely as someone defending the non-aggression principle which I, to use a colloquialism, regard as sacrosanct.”—

    So you mean then that you are arguing from faith? Is that what you’re basing your definition of morality upon?

    Well the problem with the half-truth of non aggression, is that one must aggress against something.

    By referring to the NonAggression Principle RATHER than stating a complete sentence, “I will define the category ‘moral’ as those actions in which one does not aggress against …[something or other]…” since the verb (aggress) lacks a noun (subject) and is therefore dependent upon substitution (suggestion) and therefore an appeal to introspection (deception).

    So you argue from this position that you have faith in an incomplete sentence that is structured precisely to avoid the necessity of defining the subject. In other words like ‘god is great’, NAP is a self referencing fallacy.

    Perhaps it does not occur to you that all debate in the different wings of libertinism are reducible to the same problem: the scope of that which we aggress against (initiate imposition of costs upon). Without this definition what libertinism’s NAP must and can only refer to, is that which is suppled by introspection by the listener and speaker.

    And while you can cast at me the accusation of sophism, it is somewhat ironic that one would fail to grasp that his entire moral basis is predicated upon a rather simplistic verbal sophism: a half truth that relies upon subjective substitution for agreement. But when articulated as it is by the various wings of libertinism, is no longer decidable.

    If you can grasp this – that you have been duped, and a useful idiot – then you will be on the journey OUT OF SOPHISM into truthfulness.

    You may not understand it right away but this argument ends rothbardian ethics and the NAP forever.

    Hoppe tries to rescue it with NAP IVP: Intersubjectively Verifiable Property. Meaning physical property. Yet IVP is insufficient to suppress retaliation, reduce transaction costs, and eliminate demand for authoritarian intervention on the basis of decidability.

    (That is the beauty of the lie of NAP: it leaves individual decidability but not intersubjective decidability, meaning that it is not logically possible to resolve disputes logically. It requires discretion (arbitrariness) and therefore authority not rule of law. )

    I repair this problem of undecidability by using property en toto, or demonstrated property: that which people retaliate against the imposition of costs upon, and therefore that which is sufficient for the elimination of discretion, and therefore elimination of authority and demand for the state.

    By consequence this definition of Non aggression against Property-en-toto defines the scope of that which we must reciprocally insure one another such that there is no demand for authority and such that we can rely entirely upon rule of law.

    I know it is hard for you to give up on a bad investment, but you’ve made a bad investment. You were played – just like Socialists and NeoCons.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 10:57:00 UTC

  • ***Why would you think you can rely on the objective morality of an action using

    ***Why would you think you can rely on the objective morality of an action using introspection rather than empirical measurement, any more than you can rely on the objective measurement of anything else by introspection rather than empirical measurement?***

    Seriously. In the future people won’t.

    Propertarianism and Testimonialism = “Radical Empiricism” in some people’s terms, but as far as I know it consists of ‘complete empiricism’ and every discipline that we call science before now consists of ‘incomplete empiricism’.

    There are only so many existentially possible dimensions to test.

    If we test them all then we have created complete empiricism.

    We stopped people from many forms of introspective reliance.

    The next step in our conceptual evolution is stopping people from introspective reliance on moral questions.

    Which is pretty cool really. Humbling. Terribly humbling. But cool.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-08 07:53:00 UTC

  • You don’t see our men trying to undo rule of law, property, marriage, and interg

    You don’t see our men trying to undo rule of law, property, marriage, and intergenerational exchange.

    You do see our women doing it.

    What does that tell you?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-05 07:52:00 UTC

  • LETS PUT IT ANOTHER WAY : THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WE CAN REVOLT. I enter into

    LETS PUT IT ANOTHER WAY : THE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH WE CAN REVOLT.

    I enter into debate with others by forgoing my violence in order to use truth and reason to negotiate mutually beneficial terms.

    I enter into a polity by forgoing my violence in order that the government may make use of it to negotiate mutually beneficial terms on my behalf.

    I enter into debate and into the polity entirely for the purpose of cooperation, and gaining the results of cooperation, on behalf of me, my offspring, my family and my kin.

    If any condition arises where the government does not limit itself to the use of truth and reason;

    Or in any condition where the government does not use my forgone violence in order to negotiate mutually beneficial terms on my behalf;

    Or in any condition where the government does not assist me in cooperation on behalf of myself, my offspring, my family, and my kin;

    Then the government has broken the three rational reasons by which I forgo my violence in favor of exploration of opportunity, improvement of my lot, and the improvement the lot of my kin;

    And the only rational course of action is to cease to forgo the use of my violence and use my wealth of violence, whatever that may be;

    To demand truth and reason.

    To demand action upon my behalf.

    To demand action on behalf of my kin.

    The moment an individual in government lies, that is the moment the rational contract for cooperation is broken, and that I must out of interest to myself and my kin and all those generations that have been and may follow, to overthrow that government and impose one on my behalf, and my kin’s behalf, for history and eternity.

    Leave, Repent or Die.

    But we shall no longer tolerate your lies.

    Your conquest.

    Your genocide.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-04 04:12:00 UTC

  • a) natural law doesn’t change. B) they knowingly compromised to get signatures c

    a) natural law doesn’t change. B) they knowingly compromised to get signatures c) did their method of change survive?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-02 10:22:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/683231969556205568

    Reply addressees: @AppleCiderRadio

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628820677903036420

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/628820677903036420