Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • To start a business in the USA, get a ID and file with the state. Takes 15 minut

    To start a business in the USA, get a ID and file with the state. Takes 15 minutes. “Failure is ok. You only owe tax if you profit.”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 10:35:47 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675625086678908928

    Reply addressees: @wef

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @wef

    Can #Europe ever build its own Silicon Valley? https://t.co/Yg2c68VzkH #tech https://t.co/n5pwtNqPhd

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

  • USA: maximize all opportunity – resolve conflicts in court. EU: Prior restraint,

    USA: maximize all opportunity – resolve conflicts in court. EU: Prior restraint, and ‘antique’ provincial sense of fairness limit risk.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-12 10:34:07 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675624666661330944

    Reply addressees: @wef

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

    IN REPLY TO:

    @wef

    Can #Europe ever build its own Silicon Valley? https://t.co/Yg2c68VzkH #tech https://t.co/n5pwtNqPhd

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/675616196671221760

  • Q&A: “WHAT IS THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN PROPERTARIANISM?” Propertarianism is a Critic

    Q&A: “WHAT IS THE ROLE OF WOMEN IN PROPERTARIANISM?”

    Propertarianism is a Critical(what-may-not) and therefore scientific system of logic, and not a Justificationary(what-should) and therefore idealistic system of logic. So propertarianism seeks to prevent harm: ‘badness’. Everything that does not prevent harm is a candidate for benefit: ‘goodness’.

    Just as Testimonialism prevents falsehood, leaving only candidates for truth; and just as Propertarian ethics seeks to prevent lying and theft, leaving only candidates for honest voluntary transfer; Propertarian politics seeks to prevent the harm women do, but not what they should do, leaving only candidates for not harming.

    Men pay for their enfranchisement with military and emergency services. In propertarianism women pay for their enfranchisement with child bearing, and care-taking services. These are high costs, but they are necessary costs.

    Rule of law is identical regardless of gender; policy exists to promote the family not the individual; and policy is constructed by contracts between ‘houses’.

    And ‘houses’ are constructed by gender and class. So women have their own house to negotiate with males, just as the upper classes have a house to negotiate with the middle. Membership in houses is by demonstrated accomplishment.

    So, what do women (and men) do under Propertarianism? Anything they want that doesn’t impose costs upon others. Do nothing unto others you would not want done unto you.

    I am trying to prevent the repeat of the damage that women have done to civilization because of their biological biases, just as we have struggled to prevent the damage done by men because of their biological biases.

    Women (with assistance from the enlightenment thinkers) destroyed the west via the voting booth. It is possible to eliminate the means by which they destroyed the west. And finally succeed in enfranchising women as we have enfranchised other men: by facilitating voluntary exchanges between people with different reproductive strategies. The compromise path will prevent extremes.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-11 04:10:00 UTC

  • Libertarians Cannot Gain The Presidency

    LIBERTARIAN POLICY IS TACTICAL AND NECESSARY BUT LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENCY ARE CAPABLE ONLY OF THREATENING THE DOMINANT OR OPPOSITION PARTY, NOT WINNING. [L]ibertarian party is dead. Current emerging strategy is that the democratic party is too dependent upon marginal groups and women and that the middle class and working class can be brought into the republican party. There is no room for a libertarian (entrepreneurial party) until we eliminate the FPTP problem in the constitution. Pending a civil war there will be no addition or subtraction of parties, only a DOMINANT PARTY and an OPPOSITION PARTY. The primary value of third parties is to threaten dominant and opposition parties if they fail to accommodate groups that early candidates successfully enfranchise. Ron Paul failed and he failed for good reasons: foreign policy, and open borders. Rand Paul fares no better. At present democratic party = third worlders and single women, republican party=whites. In other words democrat=non-nuclear family, and republican=nuclear family. —REPLY WAS A GIF OF JENNIFER LAWRENCE SAYING “WHATEVER”— I thought we left gossiping, rallying, and shaming to the postmoderns. smile emoticon Non arguments are for leftists and teenage girls. If you want comment on your policy that’s something I support. The question isn’t whether your libertarian policy, or anyone else’s is superior to social democratic policy. Its whether it is possible for a third party under FPTP to do other than disempower either the dominant or opposition party. The only possibility is to rase enough interest in one or two key policy improvements that cannot be appropriated and to force their appropriation by one of the major parties, or to force them to lose an election because of it. Taxes aren’t even on radar. Immigration is. But then, I’m not paid to be your advisor. And, obviously whomever your paying isn’t really up to the job. Or you would get airplay.

    —“The dominant party does not want to get more than 51% of the vote. If they get a higher percentage, they are leaving rents on the table or they are failing to push their agenda(s) as fast or as hard as they could. The opposition wants to stay in the game and get as much of the remainder (49%) as possible in the hopes that the dominant party will overplayed their hand and leave an election up for grabs, which they sometimes do. But in order to maximize their chances, they have to hew as close as possible to the positions of the dominant party. If there is any ideological gap between them, voters who fall into the gap will be split between the two dominant parties, tending to go to the closer one. In order to capture the maximum number, they must hew close. A third party can make the opposition more effective and strident by forcing it to trade off on both margins, rather than just on one, so long as opposition + third together can maintain a blocking proportion of the Senate, (40%.)”—Eli Harman

    Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Libertarians Cannot Gain The Presidency

    LIBERTARIAN POLICY IS TACTICAL AND NECESSARY BUT LIBERTARIAN CANDIDATES FOR THE PRESIDENCY ARE CAPABLE ONLY OF THREATENING THE DOMINANT OR OPPOSITION PARTY, NOT WINNING. [L]ibertarian party is dead. Current emerging strategy is that the democratic party is too dependent upon marginal groups and women and that the middle class and working class can be brought into the republican party. There is no room for a libertarian (entrepreneurial party) until we eliminate the FPTP problem in the constitution. Pending a civil war there will be no addition or subtraction of parties, only a DOMINANT PARTY and an OPPOSITION PARTY. The primary value of third parties is to threaten dominant and opposition parties if they fail to accommodate groups that early candidates successfully enfranchise. Ron Paul failed and he failed for good reasons: foreign policy, and open borders. Rand Paul fares no better. At present democratic party = third worlders and single women, republican party=whites. In other words democrat=non-nuclear family, and republican=nuclear family. —REPLY WAS A GIF OF JENNIFER LAWRENCE SAYING “WHATEVER”— I thought we left gossiping, rallying, and shaming to the postmoderns. smile emoticon Non arguments are for leftists and teenage girls. If you want comment on your policy that’s something I support. The question isn’t whether your libertarian policy, or anyone else’s is superior to social democratic policy. Its whether it is possible for a third party under FPTP to do other than disempower either the dominant or opposition party. The only possibility is to rase enough interest in one or two key policy improvements that cannot be appropriated and to force their appropriation by one of the major parties, or to force them to lose an election because of it. Taxes aren’t even on radar. Immigration is. But then, I’m not paid to be your advisor. And, obviously whomever your paying isn’t really up to the job. Or you would get airplay.

    —“The dominant party does not want to get more than 51% of the vote. If they get a higher percentage, they are leaving rents on the table or they are failing to push their agenda(s) as fast or as hard as they could. The opposition wants to stay in the game and get as much of the remainder (49%) as possible in the hopes that the dominant party will overplayed their hand and leave an election up for grabs, which they sometimes do. But in order to maximize their chances, they have to hew as close as possible to the positions of the dominant party. If there is any ideological gap between them, voters who fall into the gap will be split between the two dominant parties, tending to go to the closer one. In order to capture the maximum number, they must hew close. A third party can make the opposition more effective and strident by forcing it to trade off on both margins, rather than just on one, so long as opposition + third together can maintain a blocking proportion of the Senate, (40%.)”—Eli Harman

    Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Explained: The Libertine Fallacy Of Crusoe’s Island Thought Model

    “[T]he Fallacy of Crusoe’s Island, Surrounded by the sea. But what does the sea that surrounds and defends Crusoe’s island represent? It represents the walls of the ancient master’s house defended by master and warriors. It represents the ghetto’s walls defended by the European nobles and knights. It represents the eastern European territories defended by the Tsars, the Polish-Lithuanian Armies, and the Austro Hungarians. It represents Israel defended by American Navy, Arms, Missiles, and money. The thought model for the evolution of cooperation is the endless grassland of the Pontic steppe, evenly distributed with competitors, who must construct the mutual insurance of property and commons through the organized force of arms – denying that territory, capital and property to others. The Crusoe’s island thought model is not only a fallacy, but also a deception that seeks to justify the non-payment for the defense of territory, institutions, norms, capital, and property from competitors. Jewish Enlightenment Cosmopolitanism in socialist, Libertine libertarianism, and neo-conservatives forms, is an even worse failure than Anglo enlightenment liberalism’s social democracy and political correctness. Because like all of Jewish history, underinvestment in institutions of defense and commons by a migratory pastoral people means they engage in the privatization of costs that should have gone to defense of territory, institutions, norms, capital and property – and the export of cost of defense onto host warriors, who eventually tire of carrying free-riders. There is no free ride. The history of civilization is reducible to the incremental suppression of free riding, parasitism, and predation, by the incremental evolution of institutions, laws, traditions, and norms, which suppress it.” —Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy, The Propertarian Institute

  • Explained: The Libertine Fallacy Of Crusoe’s Island Thought Model

    “[T]he Fallacy of Crusoe’s Island, Surrounded by the sea. But what does the sea that surrounds and defends Crusoe’s island represent? It represents the walls of the ancient master’s house defended by master and warriors. It represents the ghetto’s walls defended by the European nobles and knights. It represents the eastern European territories defended by the Tsars, the Polish-Lithuanian Armies, and the Austro Hungarians. It represents Israel defended by American Navy, Arms, Missiles, and money. The thought model for the evolution of cooperation is the endless grassland of the Pontic steppe, evenly distributed with competitors, who must construct the mutual insurance of property and commons through the organized force of arms – denying that territory, capital and property to others. The Crusoe’s island thought model is not only a fallacy, but also a deception that seeks to justify the non-payment for the defense of territory, institutions, norms, capital, and property from competitors. Jewish Enlightenment Cosmopolitanism in socialist, Libertine libertarianism, and neo-conservatives forms, is an even worse failure than Anglo enlightenment liberalism’s social democracy and political correctness. Because like all of Jewish history, underinvestment in institutions of defense and commons by a migratory pastoral people means they engage in the privatization of costs that should have gone to defense of territory, institutions, norms, capital and property – and the export of cost of defense onto host warriors, who eventually tire of carrying free-riders. There is no free ride. The history of civilization is reducible to the incremental suppression of free riding, parasitism, and predation, by the incremental evolution of institutions, laws, traditions, and norms, which suppress it.” —Curt Doolittle, The Philosophy of Aristocracy, The Propertarian Institute

  • Why Is Bellevue, Wa Considered One Of The Best Places To Live In America?

    (trigger warning)j

    Truth:

    1) it’s a relatively new city built with money generated by proximity to Microsoft, and because it is new and expensive, and populated by an almost entirely college educated population, it has not (yet) accumulated an underclass.

    2) Seattle/bellevue/redmond started as a heavily Scandinavian lumber and coal region, but never experienced the migration of black communities off the farms during the automation of farming and the war era. Ergo it is a very “white” area, with Asian and Hindu minorities. 

    3) Nor is Seattle one of the traditional Gateway cities for processing the first generation or two of immigrants.

    4) In addition, the northwest is ‘hard to get to’.  The weather is grey and wet. It is painfully dark much of the year. And so it attracts a certain class of person. 

    We have a joke that Bellevue is a “Green Zone”: a beautiful place to live amidst the rapidly declining majority of the country, simply because it is a rare artificial economy, and it’s too expensive to survive there, and there is no demand for unskilled labor (Those people live north in bellingham or south in Renton.)

    Impolitic as it is, if you want a nice region the basic problem is to keep out the lower classes.  Because the lower classes demonstrate undesirable behaviors that decrease the quality of territory, institutions, capital, norms, schools, shops,  neighborhoods, homes, private property, and family life.

    Europe is a vast open air museum because for thousands of years they practiced land allocation by merit,  manorialism, late marriage and child birth, prohibition on cousin marriage, and hung about 1% of the entire population every single year. By the industrial revolution most of Europe was descended from members of what we would call the middle social class.

    Just how it is. If you want comforting lies, ask college professors and the media – they get paid to tell you what you want to hear.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Bellevue-WA-considered-one-of-the-best-places-to-live-in-America

  • Why Is Bellevue, Wa Considered One Of The Best Places To Live In America?

    (trigger warning)j

    Truth:

    1) it’s a relatively new city built with money generated by proximity to Microsoft, and because it is new and expensive, and populated by an almost entirely college educated population, it has not (yet) accumulated an underclass.

    2) Seattle/bellevue/redmond started as a heavily Scandinavian lumber and coal region, but never experienced the migration of black communities off the farms during the automation of farming and the war era. Ergo it is a very “white” area, with Asian and Hindu minorities. 

    3) Nor is Seattle one of the traditional Gateway cities for processing the first generation or two of immigrants.

    4) In addition, the northwest is ‘hard to get to’.  The weather is grey and wet. It is painfully dark much of the year. And so it attracts a certain class of person. 

    We have a joke that Bellevue is a “Green Zone”: a beautiful place to live amidst the rapidly declining majority of the country, simply because it is a rare artificial economy, and it’s too expensive to survive there, and there is no demand for unskilled labor (Those people live north in bellingham or south in Renton.)

    Impolitic as it is, if you want a nice region the basic problem is to keep out the lower classes.  Because the lower classes demonstrate undesirable behaviors that decrease the quality of territory, institutions, capital, norms, schools, shops,  neighborhoods, homes, private property, and family life.

    Europe is a vast open air museum because for thousands of years they practiced land allocation by merit,  manorialism, late marriage and child birth, prohibition on cousin marriage, and hung about 1% of the entire population every single year. By the industrial revolution most of Europe was descended from members of what we would call the middle social class.

    Just how it is. If you want comforting lies, ask college professors and the media – they get paid to tell you what you want to hear.

    https://www.quora.com/Why-is-Bellevue-WA-considered-one-of-the-best-places-to-live-in-America

  • RETALIATION IS THE TEST OF LYING, NOT INTENT. Retaliation is the test of whether

    RETALIATION IS THE TEST OF LYING, NOT INTENT.

    Retaliation is the test of whether you’ve stated a white vs grey or black lie. If someone will retaliate, or feel the need to retaliate, or be negatively disposed to you for your lie, then it’s not to be done. If the person will thank you for it, then it should be. If I am ever again in an ambulance, please tell me I will be fine because I need it. I will thank you for it.

    Paternal Lying: I lie to children – we all do to some degree – because they can’t understand the truth at times. I notice that I ‘lie’ pretty often by giving people partial information just so that I don’t have to give them a full explanation – for the simple purpose of saving time, energy, and patience. I notice that if people are treating me dishonestly, or stupidly, i let them believe what they want, rather than correct them or challenge them – to save effort and stress. When I was young in business during the Yuppie era I engaged in misdirection. When I negotiate I engage in misdirection to gain access to information. But in general I try to avoid immoral OUTCOMES, and to produce moral outcomes. This is a form of paternalism that is in fact, dishonest. Yet I am not sure it is immoral. I have very few things I regret in life and many of them are before I made a rather dramatic change in my own outlook and decided to invest in teaching people instead of outwitting them. I have a few regrets in business not because I was dishonest, but because I was simply wrong and it appeared I was dishonest. Usually I do the opposite: hold the moral high ground at all costs, even to my detriment. But that does not prevent one from engaging in outcome ethics rather than rule or virtue ethics. Hence, paternal lying: when there exists and asymmetry of understanding, knowledge and ability, such that higher moral purpose is preserved by use of knowledge than by adherence to virtue or deontological rules.

    (Interesting. first draft. I haven’t worked through that idea before.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-08 04:53:00 UTC