Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • A LEGIT CRITICISM THAT IS AN UNREASONABLE CRITICISM —“Instead of saying “prope

    A LEGIT CRITICISM THAT IS AN UNREASONABLE CRITICISM

    —“Instead of saying “propertarianism is a collection of ideas the most fundamental of which is… “ I wish she would just list the ideas in concise, fundamental forms of course including the new form of the scientific method. …. Historical reference is of course important for full understanding but you place more importance on how it fits in with respect to our existing modalities of thought and our history ….. If it’s a complete system you should be able to express it external to all context”— Bill Smith

    It’s like asking aristotle to list aristotelianism in concise format. He was applying legal (juridical) reasoning rather than the traditional normative, moral or supernatural, to the world of knowledge in his time. I’m doing the same with two millennia of additional information to work with – particularly economics, physics, cognitive and computer science – aristotle was working within human scale, and in our age, we can work beyond human scale both micro and macro. So, how do you distill that down more so than “Aristotle developed reason, began the discipline of empiricism, and science and applied his method to all fields of inquiry”. Well I did the same thing.

    Now if you want to see the outline of the set of ideas that came from that insight you can read it since it’s in summary form in the Overview. Or at least most of it is. And if you want to see it implemented you can see the state of the constitution (in continuous development). But it’s a LONG LIST of ideas, just as Aristotle in his era, or hobbes/locke/smith/hume in their era, or a list of a hundred thinkers in the industrial era.

    It’s not that I can’t say it clearly. I just did in the video. It’s that the “…application of the completion of the scientific method to all fields of inquiry…” exposes many ideas.

    So the “Overview” is (was really) my working list of the major ideas. (I do most of my work in the book now.)

    I say them concisely all the time. But that does not mean you will understand them without some rather serious effort, any more than you will undrestand any other technical field conveying counter-intuitive information without serious effort. I mean, how many people don’t understand darwin’s theory today, or einstein’s. once understood they are quite simple. If described they don’t convey much at all.

    Ideologies are simple. That’s their purpose.

    Revolutions in thought are not simple because they touch everything.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-09 12:36:00 UTC

  • ANOTHER LEGITIMATE CRITICISM Here is an other legit criticism via Richard Heathe

    ANOTHER LEGITIMATE CRITICISM

    Here is an other legit criticism via Richard Heathen:

    The catastrophic failure of our constitution to protect us from marxism, socialism, neoconservatism, postmodernism, and feminism under the pressure of universal enfranchisement and FPTP representative, majoritarian democracy, has soured all faith in our institutions, and driven the desire for a strong man – which is what history tells us will always happen.

    But I view this as an understandable but unnecessary fear. I will agree that democracy was a terrible tragedy, but the vulnerabilities were within our system, and they can be corrected and amended. We have the longest running governments in the modern world among the english speaking peoples, and the reason is that our form of government is contractual and open to continuous reform without catastrophic bloodshed – well, at least, we survive it.

    We can produce the most intolerant government in history with the greatest defenses of our people by simply providing market incentives to prosecute those who violate those those intolerances. I have more faith in our use of the courts and the law to circumvent the malincentives of the state and its bureaucracies, than I do of the malincentives of the state and its bureaucracies being constrained by their adherence to the law.

    More later.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-07 22:14:00 UTC

  • THE MANY WHO SPEAK IN IGNORANCE —“…does propertarianism have representatives

    THE MANY WHO SPEAK IN IGNORANCE

    —“…does propertarianism have representatives?…”—

    Speaking in ignorance is speaking in ignorance. Opening in ignorance with confidence is arrogance. If someone asked me to review your work I would do it before commenting.

    1 – “Propertarianism consists of the completion of the Scientific Method; its application to the totality of human knowledge; a universally commensurable language of all thought; their embodiment in the common law of tort; and as a consequence the eradication of superstition, pseudoscience, sophism, fraud, and deceit from the commercial, financial, economic, political, and informational commons.” …. “Propertarianism completes the Wilsonian Synthesis.”

    2 – With strictly constructed law of reciprocity (natural law) it is possible to create any given political order – transparently.

    3 – The optimum form of government depends first, on the level of the development of the population, and its demographic distribution. Second, on whether one is at war or behind (authoritarian), operating under ordinary conditions (meritocratic), or operating under windfalls (redistributive).

    4 – A “Perfect Government” (ideal) consist of a militia of men of genetic and cultural relations (shareholders), an army consisting of professional warriors, an independent judiciary demanding universal application and granting universal standing in matters of the commons, an hereditary monarchy with and executive professional management (council), an independent treasury, houses for each of the classes, and one of a various number of schemes for authorizing the distribution of proceeds in the production of commons by the council.

    5 – Perfect governments are not always possible or valuable, since there is very little evidence that political participation on the part o the population is superior to the judgement of the monarchies. Worse, markets for political influence are the enemy of the people. Which is why the population must retain rights of standing in matters private AND common.

    6 – The principle difference in propertarianism is the extension of demand for warranty of due diligence on one’s speech from specific commercial to all commercial, financial, economic, political, legal, and academic speech – thereby making it impossible for the supernaturalisms, pseudosciences, sophisms and denialisms of marxism, postmodernism, feminism, judaism, and islam to exist without punishment by any and every citizen wishing to do so. christianity is a special case because while it is nonsense, the underlying ethics of christianity expressed scientifically is not only reciprocal, and thereby adherent to natural law, but optimum since no alternative prisoner’s dilemma strategy is superior.

    Decentralization, Separatism, Nationalism, definancialization, depoliticization, voluntary disassociation, restoration of our high trust polity, and all done by simply creating a market for profiting from the prosecution of falsehood and reciprocity in courts.

    Continuous superiority, by continuous velocity, by continuous agency, by the combination of sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, law and jury, and markets in association, cooperation, production, reproduction, commons, and polities.

    Restoration of our group evolutionary strategy: maneuver.

    At 10,000 feet, that is propertarianism. But that is only 10% of it.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-03 23:07:00 UTC

  • IN DEFENSE, PUNCHING RIGHT (FAIL) According to Richard: 1 – We aren’t going to h

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tkejEvqhy4SPENCER IN DEFENSE, PUNCHING RIGHT (FAIL)

    According to Richard:

    1 – We aren’t going to have an uprising.

    (Its actionable, and testable. Except you already blew the opportunity.)

    2 – An uprising can’t win.

    (except the state is certain we can, and the plan is actionable and criticizable.)

    3 – A constitution won’t help us

    (Except that it’s actionable and criticizable)

    Instead…

    4 – We need a new elite

    (Magic!!!! Yeah? Who?)

    5 – We need a new spiritual awakening

    (Magic!!! With what? Inactionable.).

    Richard’s solution???? Wait some more until magic happens…..

    When you have crashed and burned and have nothing but empty wishful thinking, and ‘wait and see for a new messiah’ you clearly need to punch right to try to stay relevant.

    PROVIDE A SOLUTION, PROVIDE INCENTIVE, PEOPLE WILL ACT AND LEADERS WILL EMERGE DURING ACTION.

    1 – A moral license (replacement, impoverishment)

    2 – A set of demands (constitution)

    3 – A plan of transition (incremental devolution)

    4 – A means of altering the status quo (fragility)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tkejEvqhy4

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-03 22:32:00 UTC

  • ANOTHER REBUTTAL @Mark Wright When you get your panties out of the bunch, and ce

    ANOTHER REBUTTAL

    @Mark Wright

    When you get your panties out of the bunch, and cease being offended when something is over your head, and not spoon fed to you, then you might consider manning up and trying the hard work of mastering any of the logics. 😉

    There is no grammar of the full scope of language that is more ‘clear’ than propertarianism. However, the training necessary to make use of that language precisely is non trivial.

    Ideology must be accessible to normies. Philosophy must appeal to intuitions. For those of us who do science, we understand that training is required. The reason being that anything sufficiently decidable to be labeled a ‘science’ must be reduced to a method of calculation (grammar) within which statements are ‘well formed’ (adhere to the grammar) such that they are decidable independent of appeal to intuition(philosophy) or sentiment (ideology).

    Learn to learn from your betters. They must invest in you. They way you compensate them for investing in you is sufficient respect and attention that it’s not a waste of their time.

    Cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-03 13:30:00 UTC

  • #StarTrekDiscovery is predictive: the future consists of each generation, beginn

    #StarTrekDiscovery is predictive: the future consists of each generation, beginning millennials, increasing in dysgenia and psychosis, until they are bottle fed watching avatars of themselves succeeding by sequences of convenient miracles provided by deus ex machina.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-02 21:51:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091816395602624518

  • WTH? #StarTrekDiscovery is soap opera about pre-schoolers with psychological def

    WTH? #StarTrekDiscovery is soap opera about pre-schoolers with psychological defects unfit for janitorial services somehow obtaining responsibility for high energy weaponry. It’s the worst possible premise, story arc, acting, filmed with the highest production value. TRAGIC.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-02 21:48:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1091815639914819585

  • “calculating 40 years/generation would set a birth date for Odin to be around 10

    —“calculating 40 years/generation would set a birth date for Odin to be around 100 – 150 AD.”—

    (Color me skeptical.)

    —“These indications adequately supports Snorris story of the Asas fleeing for the Roman forces to seek new land up in northern Europe – in Svitjod. But most importantly, the existence of a people called Asas living by the Black Sea around 100 BC – 100 AD can now be confirmed.

    It seems plausible that the Asas really could have emigrated from Azov/Asgård around 60 BC, and that a human named Odin could have existed in Scandinavia or northern Germany around 50 BC.

    But it certainly does not match the Anglo-Saxon genealogy, as we have seen.

    So, to answer the question whether this adds up to support the Asa-peoples emigration from the Black Sea is rather easy:

    The simple truth is, it does not…

    Thus it seems we have two different approaches for identification of a human being, named Odin, that span at least 200 years apart. It just do not match…

    How can this be solved?”—

    Source date (UTC): 2019-02-02 21:01:00 UTC

  • NO. YOU HAVE FAITH IN A FRAUD. NOT REASON. —“….libertarians believe….”—

    NO. YOU HAVE FAITH IN A FRAUD. NOT REASON.

    —“….libertarians believe….”— Libertarian Party

    0) Everything you subsidize will increase in consumption thereby increasing the overall proportion of productivity used to consume it. The only question is whether like engines of the animal, mechanical or digital categories, they produce higher returns for doing so – or not.

    1) Libertarianism persists fallen angel version of man vs the risen beast, slowly domesticated by the violent imposition of demand for reciprocity under that law we call tort. Findings of Law, Legislation, and Regulation do in fact limit scams and frauds. … and ….

    2) … so the problem is not law, and regulation, but the inability of the consumer to judge the product delivered to him, and the use of redistribution to compensate those who engage in fraud that takes advantage of that ignorance.

    3) This is an example of a common (infantlie) libertarian trope:that the consumer can possess sufficient information to avoid irreciprocity, and that the insurer of last resort should not force due diligence in the service of the market by those who might abuse asymmetry of info.

    4) Jewish law, which is the source of left libertarianism, only enforces the demand for volition,and not warranty. European law, which is the source of liberalism, enforces reciprocity and warranty. There is a reason for the historical incompatibility, of the two ethical systems.

    5) We are faced today with not only the difference between Anglo classical liberal and reciprocal, germanic reciprocal proportional, french authoritarian socialist proportional, jewish voluntary unwarrantied, but now Islamic Authoritarian irreciprocal law of conquest.

    6) Libertarians are wrong. Whether they are wrong because they are infantile, or wrong because they have parasitic preferences is immaterial. There is only one source of liberty: sovereignty and reciprocity, truth and duty, the law of tort and jury, violence and defense.

    7) Sovereignty exists in fact. Liberty by the permission of the sovereign. Freedom by the utility of the sovereign. And sovereignty has but one source, and that is the organized application of violence to deny all other alternatives.

    8) Welcome to the revolution. Those who fight will have sovereignty not liberty or freedom. Those who do not fight will have none.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-30 13:34:00 UTC

  • REGARDING: NEWS: “VA WOMEN SEEK TO PERMIT ABORTION DURING BIRTH” (NAXALT WARNING

    REGARDING: NEWS: “VA WOMEN SEEK TO PERMIT ABORTION DURING BIRTH”

    (NAXALT WARNING: whenever we use a universal category like men or women, men and women exist in a distribution of ability. bias. experience. and knowledge, but we can still quite easily make ‘general rules of general precision regarding the cumulative behavior of those distributions’ – No More NAXALT Deceits!)

    (SENSITIVE TOPIC WARNING: Sorry but this is science. No more lies.)

    MEN

    Men defend the herd (women and children) by instinct. Everything men do attempts to preserve sufficient loyalty among super-predators, for the male pack to maintain the resource of the female herd in competition against other packs who compete for resources – including our female herd.

    WOMEN

    Women conduct “sh-t tests” by instinct. Or better stated, women look for opportunities to undermine.

    This is how they create and maintain equality: undermining.

    Women eliminate competitors by undermining.

    They control the fitness of their males in competition with other males by undermining.

    They control access to their reproductive facility by undermining.

    They control each other through undermining.

    And where men simply end the threat to the pack, women seek to destroy competition completely.

    Women undermine. They feel ‘good’ and ‘relaxed’ whenever they undermine any and everyone.

    Western men are the victims of permissiveness in letting women undermine.

    There is no end to woman’s want of nesting.

    There is no end to woman’s want of attention.

    There is no end to woman’s want of undermining.

    Women in Europe took out their anger on the church.

    Women in Anglodom took out their anger on the monarchy.

    Women in America took out their anger on men.

    They undermined the church, they undermined, the monarchy, and they undermine their men, and the undermine all that has made their lives of relative luxury possible – and they will never, ever, stop.

    Despite the fact that it was heroism, loyalty, sovereignty, property, marriage, and paternalism that raised us out of ignorance, superstition, poverty, starvation, hard labor, suffering, disease, child mortality, early death, the perils of the seasons and the vicissitudes of nature in a universe hostile to life.

    We are but riders on the elephants of our evolutionary heritage embodied in our genes, and expressed in our physiology, and demonstrated in our behavior. Our though and speech is nothing more than a means of negotiating on behalf of those genes.

    By extraordinary effort we can develop the agency to reason – and not be controlled by the elephant, rather than intuit and feel – and be controlled by the elephant.

    The elephant does not tell us what is good. It tells us only how to compete in small bands of hunter gatherers.

    (Yes I am riffing off the obvious)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-01-29 22:38:00 UTC