Curt Doolittle

Form: Argument

  • Obtaining Liberty In Our Lifetime

    LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME [A]phoristic arguments, programmatic as they may be, are ideologically utilitarian, and place limited burden on the speaker. They teach the intuition through use and repetition, better than verbose and detailed arguments. Conservatives (aristocratic egalitarians) understand this. Or at least intuit it. That is why they win the moral battle for votes, despite inferior intellectuals, and arational arguments. One may not see it, but look at how fast the work I have done, just since December, is spreading across the internet. My terminology alone is working its way into dialog. Thanks to the internet, we live in a new order, with new distribution channels. In the current order, the market for information is not controlled by the paradigm of the prior generation. One need not seek approval or permission from the establishment – only provide the market with product it demands. One can sell an idea, or, one can create demand for an idea. One can attempt to create demand for inadequate libertarianism, or one can satisfy demand for an adequate libertarianism. Liberty that satisfies demand. Liberty in our lifetimes. Aristocratic Egalitarianism. Aristocracy (liberty) of the willing.

    Ayelam Valentine Agaliba Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori. Curt Doolittle —“Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori.”— Wow. I… I really want to kiss you for that quote. But I think you would object. So I’ll just thank you profusely. lol

  • Obtaining Liberty In Our Lifetime

    LIBERTY IN OUR LIFETIME [A]phoristic arguments, programmatic as they may be, are ideologically utilitarian, and place limited burden on the speaker. They teach the intuition through use and repetition, better than verbose and detailed arguments. Conservatives (aristocratic egalitarians) understand this. Or at least intuit it. That is why they win the moral battle for votes, despite inferior intellectuals, and arational arguments. One may not see it, but look at how fast the work I have done, just since December, is spreading across the internet. My terminology alone is working its way into dialog. Thanks to the internet, we live in a new order, with new distribution channels. In the current order, the market for information is not controlled by the paradigm of the prior generation. One need not seek approval or permission from the establishment – only provide the market with product it demands. One can sell an idea, or, one can create demand for an idea. One can attempt to create demand for inadequate libertarianism, or one can satisfy demand for an adequate libertarianism. Liberty that satisfies demand. Liberty in our lifetimes. Aristocratic Egalitarianism. Aristocracy (liberty) of the willing.

    Ayelam Valentine Agaliba Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori. Curt Doolittle —“Anything that can be shown apriori can be demonstrated or translated empirically with higher confidence but not everything that is empirical can be demonstrated apriori.”— Wow. I… I really want to kiss you for that quote. But I think you would object. So I’ll just thank you profusely. lol

  • Failure To Use Operational Definitions In Economics, Politics and Law Is Criminal (Really)

    (Profound)(reposted)(worth repeating) [W]hile a failure to rely upon operational definitions in mathematics, logic and philosophy may only be immoral, and in science unethical – in economics, politics and law it is criminal. In Mathematics avoiding operationalism merely perpetuates an error; in logic and philosophy it is deceptive of both others and one’s self; in science wastes others’ time. But in economics, politics and law, failure to use operationalism creates theft. That is the answer to the riddle Mises, Rothbard, and Hoppe couldn’t solve in economics and ethics. Nor Hayek and Popper and their followers in politics and philosophy. But then, neither did Bridgman and his followers in science, nor Brouwer and his followers in math. I don’t think the long list ending with Kripke solved it either in logic. One cannot use this heavily loaded term ‘true’ as other than analogy without a constructive knowledge of its meaning. And the only meaning that is constructively possible is testimony: performative truth. All else is merely proof. And the quaint linguistic contrivance that conflates the most parsimonious possible theory with testimony is, much like multitudinous abuses of the verb to-be, nothing more than a means by which we obscure our ignorance as a means of making mere analogies as a substitute for truth claims. Only constructive proofs demonstrate that one possesses the knowledge to make a truth claim. Everything else is merely analogy.

  • CORRECTING THE LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT AGAINST CORPORATIONS Corporations are collec

    CORRECTING THE LIBERTARIAN ARGUMENT AGAINST CORPORATIONS

    Corporations are collections of people insured by the state in order to decrease the risk of legal attacks on one hand and increase employment, wealth and taxes on the other.

    Unfortunately, for historical reasons, this legal protection and corporeal terminology evolved rather than insurance and economic terminology.

    As such, most of the political rhetoric regarding corporations as analogies for people are empty verbalisms.

    The correct amalogy is public-private investments in order for the state to encourage risk taking by insuring owners against legal risk.

    This turns out to be useful during early capitalism, but decreesses in value as wealth increaees.

    Public private partnerships are useful and necessary means of producing commons which are later fully privatized.

    No populace has SURVIVED economic competition without this strategy.

    The evolutionary failure is in not privatizing (uninsuring) these entities once one has a functioning economy.

    This is another example of the confusion caused by conflating administrative law and insurance functions and economic policy in a single governmental body.

    If instead we used insurers and insurer paid legal processes, and loser-pays we could achieve the same effect.

    However, the libertarian logical fallacy is that such public private partnerships are not nevessary for the initial production of an economy and the organic development of laws that facilitate risk taking.

    We are correct that this insurance should be withdrawn at some point, and that it had gone too far. But we are wrong to assume that it is not competitively necessary for a polity to generate a high trust, high velicity economy.

    Westerners invented most capitalist law. But once law is invented, it can be restated and reformed without its historical linguistic and cultural baggage.

    This is the problem: the empty verbalism of organic development using governments mixing functions of administrative law, insurer, producer of commons, and economic policy.

    As such many if our arguments are empty verbalisms not attempts at institutional reformation.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev

    Source date (UTC): 2014-07-07 01:09:00 UTC

  • SCIENCE VS BELIEF – INSTITUTIONS OF LAW VS RELIGIONS AND CULTS Yeah…. I don’t

    SCIENCE VS BELIEF – INSTITUTIONS OF LAW VS RELIGIONS AND CULTS

    Yeah…. I don’t make “should” or “belief” arguments. Sorry. If you wanna make people believe something, start a religion or cult like Rothbard did. If you want to create a stateless, private or anarchic polity, then you have to eliminate rational demand for the services provided by the state. To do that requires a high trust society. And the evidence is universally in my favor that it does. So the burden on the lunatic fringe, is to demonstrate that people will rationally join a low trust polity in the absence of strong central authority that suppresses retribution for unethical, immoral and conspiratorial actions. Because human beings demonstrate that they will commit acts of violence in retribution for unethical, immoral, and conspiratorial actions, just like they will for criminal actions.

    Just how it is. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-27 05:50:00 UTC

  • THE PURPOSE OF AN AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT IS TO SUPPRESS RETRIBUTION FOR ANTI-S

    THE PURPOSE OF AN AUTHORITARIAN GOVERNMENT IS TO SUPPRESS RETRIBUTION FOR ANTI-SOCIAL, UNETHICAL AND IMMORAL ACTIONS.

    (and it’s genocidal)

    The purpose of an investigatory police, is to concentrate knowledge of troublesome individuals and groups into the hands of specialists. So that crime can be investigated and reduced if not eliminated, by the suppression of, control of, and elimination of troublesome individuals and groups.

    We require, an investigatory police force, in the case of anonymous crimes, we cannot all of us possess such intimate knowledge of the minority who engage in career criminality.

    The more immoral the society, the more unethical the society, the more anti-social a society, the more need for various kinds of police to suppress retaliation against those who we KNOW, who are NOT anonymous, and who have committed anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions.

    When we cannot use the courts to sue for restitution for anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions, the state must suppress our retribution for anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions.

    The state currently punishes retribution for anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions – whereas in history, the job of all men, was to punish violations of anti-social, unethical, and immoral norms.

    So instead, the state has LICENSED AND ADVOCATED anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions, by forbidding and punishing retribution for, and suppression of, anti-social, unethical, and immoral actions.

    The state is the manufacturer of anti-social, unethical and immoral action.

    Why?

    In America, it is the conquest of conservative protestantism (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples.

    In Britain it is the conquest of the conservative protestant (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples.

    In Europe is is the conquest of the conservative protestant (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples.

    In Canada it is the conquest of the conservative protestant (aristocratic egalitarians) by the less moral peoples (the french, and now the immigrants).

    In Russia they are trying to prohibit the conquest of their low trust people, by even lower trust peoples.

    REVERSE COLONIZATION

    We are being colonized so that statists can free ride, and the lower classes can live off the productivity of the middle classes and prevent the middle classes from breeding in sufficient numbers to retain their economic competitiveness and their high trust norms.

    If colonialism was immoral then surely reverse colonialism is immoral.

    It is certainly genocide.

    Source date (UTC): 2014-06-26 03:55:00 UTC

  • Why Aren't Educations Warrantied?

    UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES SHOULD WARRANTY THEIR PRODUCTS, AND WE SHOULD SUE THEM FOR THE FAILURE OF THEIR PRODUCTS TO PERFORM. [T]he state gives the universities protection from suits. For selling non-performing products. (But then, the government is a monopoly that forces us to buy its services too.) Q: “Should a college education be offered to all people or to just a certain group of people?” “Should” is an interesting question. “College Education” is a loose term. “Offered” is a questionable term. The data suggest we send way too many people to college and way too few people to apprenticeship programs. Just statistically speaking, if it takes a 110-115 IQ to complete liberal arts education that means that we should be only educating `10-20% of the population and the rest should get vocational training rather than liberal arts training. Now that said, if colleges and universities had to warrantee their products, rather than sell non performing products, say, by getting x% of your payroll for 30 years, then we could drop tuition fees altogether, loans altogether, and let universities borrow to cover float (receiveables) themselves. This would rapidly change the university system from just another parasitic quasi-governmental bureaucracy, to a market driven organization. University costs and administrative costs would plummet, and courses woukd be outcome oriented. This is the best idea for solving the problem of parasitic but useless university degrees. We know now that we learn nothing at university if value. All they do is sort and filter the population.

  • Why Aren’t Educations Warrantied?

    UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES SHOULD WARRANTY THEIR PRODUCTS, AND WE SHOULD SUE THEM FOR THE FAILURE OF THEIR PRODUCTS TO PERFORM. [T]he state gives the universities protection from suits. For selling non-performing products. (But then, the government is a monopoly that forces us to buy its services too.) Q: “Should a college education be offered to all people or to just a certain group of people?” “Should” is an interesting question. “College Education” is a loose term. “Offered” is a questionable term. The data suggest we send way too many people to college and way too few people to apprenticeship programs. Just statistically speaking, if it takes a 110-115 IQ to complete liberal arts education that means that we should be only educating `10-20% of the population and the rest should get vocational training rather than liberal arts training. Now that said, if colleges and universities had to warrantee their products, rather than sell non performing products, say, by getting x% of your payroll for 30 years, then we could drop tuition fees altogether, loans altogether, and let universities borrow to cover float (receiveables) themselves. This would rapidly change the university system from just another parasitic quasi-governmental bureaucracy, to a market driven organization. University costs and administrative costs would plummet, and courses woukd be outcome oriented. This is the best idea for solving the problem of parasitic but useless university degrees. We know now that we learn nothing at university if value. All they do is sort and filter the population.

  • Why Aren't Educations Warrantied?

    UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES SHOULD WARRANTY THEIR PRODUCTS, AND WE SHOULD SUE THEM FOR THE FAILURE OF THEIR PRODUCTS TO PERFORM. [T]he state gives the universities protection from suits. For selling non-performing products. (But then, the government is a monopoly that forces us to buy its services too.) Q: “Should a college education be offered to all people or to just a certain group of people?” “Should” is an interesting question. “College Education” is a loose term. “Offered” is a questionable term. The data suggest we send way too many people to college and way too few people to apprenticeship programs. Just statistically speaking, if it takes a 110-115 IQ to complete liberal arts education that means that we should be only educating `10-20% of the population and the rest should get vocational training rather than liberal arts training. Now that said, if colleges and universities had to warrantee their products, rather than sell non performing products, say, by getting x% of your payroll for 30 years, then we could drop tuition fees altogether, loans altogether, and let universities borrow to cover float (receiveables) themselves. This would rapidly change the university system from just another parasitic quasi-governmental bureaucracy, to a market driven organization. University costs and administrative costs would plummet, and courses woukd be outcome oriented. This is the best idea for solving the problem of parasitic but useless university degrees. We know now that we learn nothing at university if value. All they do is sort and filter the population.

  • Why Aren’t Educations Warrantied?

    UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES SHOULD WARRANTY THEIR PRODUCTS, AND WE SHOULD SUE THEM FOR THE FAILURE OF THEIR PRODUCTS TO PERFORM. [T]he state gives the universities protection from suits. For selling non-performing products. (But then, the government is a monopoly that forces us to buy its services too.) Q: “Should a college education be offered to all people or to just a certain group of people?” “Should” is an interesting question. “College Education” is a loose term. “Offered” is a questionable term. The data suggest we send way too many people to college and way too few people to apprenticeship programs. Just statistically speaking, if it takes a 110-115 IQ to complete liberal arts education that means that we should be only educating `10-20% of the population and the rest should get vocational training rather than liberal arts training. Now that said, if colleges and universities had to warrantee their products, rather than sell non performing products, say, by getting x% of your payroll for 30 years, then we could drop tuition fees altogether, loans altogether, and let universities borrow to cover float (receiveables) themselves. This would rapidly change the university system from just another parasitic quasi-governmental bureaucracy, to a market driven organization. University costs and administrative costs would plummet, and courses woukd be outcome oriented. This is the best idea for solving the problem of parasitic but useless university degrees. We know now that we learn nothing at university if value. All they do is sort and filter the population.