Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART II —“who is the parasite, the mother or the fetus?

    MURDERING THE UNBORN – PART II

    —“who is the parasite, the mother or the fetus?”—

    The mother parasitically consumes the life of the child killed.

    The mother parasitically imposes costs on society if she is not capable of provision.

    The only non violation of the prohibition in parasitism that we call morality is to bear, and support a child.

    As such the entire feminist movement other than property rights rendering all equal under the law is an immoral deceit for the single purpose of escaping resposubikity for her inability to control her impulsesu. Just as the entire penal system exists to punish men who act parasitically, the moral code, property rights and family structure evolved to prevent women from engaging in parasitism.

    The manorial system and our prudish morality existed largely to prevent reproduction by immoral women who would then subject the rest of us to moral hazard – in other words, bearing a child one cannot support is a form of entrapment. A deceit. A fraud. A theft.

    Women need oppressing in reproduction since they use parasitism as a reproductive strategy.

    The west evolved faster because we supprssed our underclasses from reproducing.

    Women have used democracy to reinstitute parasitism as the primary means of reproductive strategy.

    The historical narrative is one of demonic males. But the equally obvious historical narrative is parasitic females.

    This is profound. It is quite the opposite of the anglo enlightenment argument that has failed under democracy.

    It is quite the opposite of the feminist narrative.

    The operational narrative is that man rose out of barbarism by controlling the reproduction of parasitic females through the institutions of family and property rights.

    And socialism(male) and feminism(female) is just another attempt to regress into dysgenic reoroducion.

    The conflict is not between classes but between eugenic and dysgenic reproduction.

    Marx was not only wrong, he was a justificationary fraud.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 03:38:00 UTC

  • If you can choose to abort, I can choose not to support. There is no difference.

    If you can choose to abort, I can choose not to support. There is no difference.

    ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.***

    ie: parasitism.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-19 03:28:00 UTC

  • ITS MURDER. ITS AN ACT OF MURDER. WE MAY NOT CHOOSE TO PUNISH MURDER. BUT ITS AN

    ITS MURDER. ITS AN ACT OF MURDER. WE MAY NOT CHOOSE TO PUNISH MURDER. BUT ITS AN ACT OF MURDER.

    If you take action to end a life, regardless of what stage, you end a life. That is all there is to it. There isn’t anything else do debate. The debate is only whether we hold people accountable for ending lives.

    I have no problem with murder. I just call it murder. Whether we punish murderers or not is a choice. But the choice to punish murderers has no factual impact on whether one committed an action to end a life, regardless of whether it’s an embryonic life, or a centenarian in a coma on life support. If you act, you change state, and if you change state by your actions, you are the cause of the consequences.

    I am OK with murder. I am ok with abortion-murder. I am ok with all murder really. We don’t do enough murdering as far as I can tell. Murder is underrated. Murder often produces goods. Murder quite often can produce exceptional goods. I can think of lots of good that can be done with murder.

    But that’s different from feminist deceit. Feminist deceit is just a means of stealing. Because that’s the central proposition of feminism, just as the central proposition of socialism, and the central proposition of postmodernism: theft.

    So, abortion is murder. You want to murder your fetus so that you aren’t responsible for paying for it in time, care, money and opportunity. I want to murder adults so that I don’t have to pay for them. I probably want to murder you so that I don’t have do pay for you. The world would probably be better if all parasites were murdered. So it’s murder. And let’s not lie and say it isn’t murder. It’s just murder. It’s plain and simple. Murder.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-18 16:22:00 UTC

  • REVISITING THE NAP, AND STAMPING IT OUT WHEREVER WE CAN FIND IT. The non-aggress

    REVISITING THE NAP, AND STAMPING IT OUT WHEREVER WE CAN FIND IT.

    The non-aggression principle is a fallacious distraction specifically developed in order to permit deceit. True, one must not aggress, but that statement is meaningless without stating what it is we fail to aggress against.

    Under the NAP, as advocated by both Rothbard and Hoppe, and perpetuated by Block, the test of aggression is merely intersubjectively verifiable property. Under this fallacy, they argue that man SHOULD not retaliate, and must not retaliate, or he will be brought to court for his retaliation.

    But this test permits parasitism, and as Block advocates, even blackmail. And man retaliates against blackmail. We cannot explain away that man retaliates against blackmail. It is praxeologically irrational that man not retaliate against blackmail.

    The common law provides a means for preventing retaliation – and in large part that was solution that provided its origin: *to preserve cooperation by providing a means of retaliation, without the necessity of appeal to authority.*

    The test of demand for authority is that we must not aggress against anything that humans will retaliate against. And humans will retaliate against property-en-toto, not merely intersubjectively verifiable property.

    Rothbard attempted to preserve Levantine immorality. He attempted to preserve the opportunity to deceive. He attempted to preserve the ability to profit from unproductive activity. Rothbard attempted to preserve evasion of payment for the commons. Rothbard attempted to prohibit the construction of commons. Yet western high trust – the source of our universal economic advantage, the source of our science and reason, the source of rule by law and jury, is entirely dependent upon our ability to construct normative and material commons by prohibiting all human action that is parasitic, and even that which is unproductive.

    Conversely, without truth-telling, the common law, the jury, the normative commons, and total prohibition on the imposition of costs, wherein all possible disputes can be resolved under the law, without an authority, then, in such a condition, demand for the authoritarian state increases with the degree of those impositions that are not satisfied by law. As such, Levantine morality (immorality), de facto, praxeologically, without exception, increases demand for the state. Ergo, NAP is a source of demand for the state, not one of elimination of it. And we see this wherever Levantine low trust ethics are practiced.

    When you use the term NAP, you are invoking primitive, Levantine immorality. Instead, if you wish liberty, we must not impose costs upon one another. And our law must prohibit the imposition of costs upon one another. This eliminates demand for the state.

    Only by eliminating demand for the state, can we diminish it.

    The fallacious counter argument is that competition itself imposes costs upon others. But it imposes opportunity costs only. And without those opportunity costs, we cannot construct the voluntary organization of production that we unfortunately refer to as “capitalism”.

    So abandon the fallacy of non-aggression as one of the formal, logical, and moral reasons for the failure of libertarianism since Rothbard seized control of it from westerners, by the same means employed by the Marxists, socialists, postmodernists and neocons: mere saturation of the subject with repeated fallacies: loading, framing and overloading.

    Speak the truth. Impose no cost. Punish the wicked. Kill the evil. To do otherwise is to attempt to use deceit to purchase liberty at a discount, rather than to construct it by bearing the cost of doing so.

    Cheers.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 12:47:00 UTC

  • PROPERTARIANISM: CORRECTING HEINLEIN ON MORALITY –“Morals — all correct moral l

    PROPERTARIANISM: CORRECTING HEINLEIN ON MORALITY

    –“Morals — all correct moral laws — derive from the instinct to survive. Moral behavior is survival behavior above the individual level. The basis of all morality is duty.”– Heinlein

    Terribly imprecise and inadequate use of antique religio-moral language to refer to a purely economic (human) behavior.

    It is not true that morals derive from the instinct to survive, but from the instinct to cooperate, and to gain advantage in consumption through cooperation. It is true that we cannot consider the intertemporally self-genocidal, fratricidal and suicidal to be moral – because that is irrational. But that tells us nothing about the reasons for, and causes of, our moral intuitions.

    Our emotional intuitions tell us to acquire if not to expense, and to avoid prevent even if it is so.

    Our moral intuitions encourage us to cooperate out of self-interest, and to avoid and punish parasitism out of self-interest.

    This is because cooperation is a multiplier on acquisition. And because parasitism eliminates the value of cooperation.

    So, duty, while admirable (and the central proposition of germanic civilization), is correctly stated as the payment of all possible fees into the intellectual, normative, material, and genetic commons.

    Germanic ‘duty’ refers to the total suppression of free riding on the intellectual, normative, material, and genetic commons.

    Men pay a disproportionate percentage of these costs. In no small part, because women largely engage in just the opposite. As has been demonstrated by their voting pattern in all democratic countries.

    Propertarianism solves all questions of human action.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 05:37:00 UTC

  • RATIONALISM – INTERNALLY CONSISTENT ANALOGY – IS AN EXEPTIONAL MEANS OF DECEIT.

    RATIONALISM – INTERNALLY CONSISTENT ANALOGY – IS AN EXEPTIONAL MEANS OF DECEIT. HERE IS WHY.

    (from elsewhere)

    The use of invocation by analogy, allows us to conflate the perspectives of imagination, experience, action, and observation, such that we cause substitution of relations, and the pretense of existence, because we require substitution, to compensate for the conflation – which as a consequence allows us to use suggestion, loading, framing, and overloading.

    The reason science (truth-telling) has defeated rationalism(story-telling), is the requirement for operational definitions, and therefore the mandate for perspective that is free of imagination, analogy, loading, framing, overloading; and as such, free of suggestion.

    Now, our cognitive biases, and our moral biases perform suggestion for us. So it is not necessarily that we intend to deceive by analogy, substitution, loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion. We often have little choice. Our genetic and learned intuitions drive us to justify our strategies.

    So even when we practice critical reasoning we are engaging in justification – because critical reasoning is an advantage for us. It just so happens that for some of us truth is an advantage, and for many others it is a disadvantage. Individual and group strategies often depend upon useful falsehoods.

    The minimum reducible statement is something on the order of “Operations are names, not analogies, and as such the informational content of names is complete.”

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 03:22:00 UTC

  • LIE BY ANALOGY One can lie easily using analogies. It is extremely difficult to

    LIE BY ANALOGY

    One can lie easily using analogies. It is extremely difficult to lie using operational language. That is why science requires operational definitions. Whenever someone makes a statement about ‘law’ and rule of law, it is helpful to ascertain whether the person is engaged in deceit, by questioning whether he is talking about law, contractual provision, command, or permission.

    Humans evolved cooperation from non-cooperation because it was an unequalled multiplier in the production of calories, and concentration of calories in expensive offspring. But as soon as one develops cooperation one invites free riding (parasitism). The prevention of free riding is necessary for the preservation of cooperation – otherwise cooperation is irrational and counter-productive. Without the prevention of free riding, and without aggressive punishment of free riders – from the lazy family member to the aggressive alpha, to the predatory competitor – people cease to cooperate, and must cease to cooperate. And productivity declines accordingly. And trust declines accordingly. And economic velocity declines accordingly. And violence theft, fraud, free riding, and rent seeking and corruption and conspiracy – including political conspiracy at scale, and bureaucratic conspiracy of common malincentives expand to the point of equilibrium.

    We either possess rule of law: constraint, without exception, or discretion, or conversely, independence from discretion in matters of involuntary transfer – or we do not.

    Rule of law is not a mater of opinion. It is either true or not true.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 03:20:00 UTC

  • RULE OF LAW IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION Either laws completely and totally limit

    RULE OF LAW IS NOT A MATTER OF OPINION

    Either laws completely and totally limit our executives in all circumstances other than defensive warfare, or there is no rule of law. Administrative ‘law’ is an impossibility. We can issue administrative commands, and by deceit, claim that they hold the same properties as law. We can issue regulatory commands, and by deceit claim that they hold the same properties as law. But they always have been convenient deceits – to grant to arbitrary human wish that which is necessary law of cooperation.

    Law is discovered, and recorded by neutral jurists, no less scientifically than physical laws, biological processes, and mechanical operations: as we invent new means of involuntary transfer – from the most simplistic and obvious violence theft and fraud, to the most indirect and obscure socialization of losses, privatization of commons, rent seeking and free riding – we register this new means of involuntary transfer (just as we register patents) as new prohibitions on involuntary transfer: law.

    We can choose to construct contracts for the production of commons, using government, and we can resolve those contracts in courts, using laws. But beyond the voluntary production of commons, all else is usurpation and command.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-08 01:45:00 UTC

  • DIFFERENCES IN REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY, NOT THINKING Our weights are different not

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBsT9XTwsn0SEX DIFFERENCES IN REPRODUCTIVE STRATEGY, NOT THINKING

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBsT9XTwsn0

    Our weights are different not our processes.

    – Female value in harmony, consensus, compliance or submission. The female reproductive strategy. Female reproductive strategy is not to draw ire, and to ensure the success of her offspring at all costs – regardless of merit.

    vs

    – Male value in change, leadership, differential advantage or dominance. The male reproductive strategy. Male intuition is to protect and improve the tribe – the brother’s ability to keep and pair off with females – by consciousness of merit.

    We measure and value different outcomes. We do not apply different reasoning. This is why the regions of the brain differ..

    Propertarianism provides greater explanatory power that psychology.

    Cheers.

    (HT Roman Skaskiw)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-07 12:40:00 UTC

  • A SYSTEM FOR THE LOWER CLASSES? Pay them to maintain the normative and physical

    A SYSTEM FOR THE LOWER CLASSES?

    Pay them to maintain the normative and physical commons and have only one child. Stop paying them if they don’t behave well, and sterilize them if they have an additional child. Imprison them in the desert at hard labor if they commit three strikes. I am against redistribution. But I am in favor of paying people to construct the voluntary organization of production we call property rights and the commons. And people who DON”T want to pay those classes are simply trying to make those classes pay the high price of constructing the voluntary organization of production – against their own interests. Paying people isn’t redistribution. It’s compensation. And you can be fired from the job.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-03-26 07:51:00 UTC