Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LIBERTARIAN IDENTITY —“And you call yourself libertar

    MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LIBERTARIAN IDENTITY

    —“And you call yourself libertarian. Lol”—

    So you mean, you don’t understand semantics, grammar, consistency, correspondence, coherence, parsimony and falsifiability?

    The only requirement for a libertarian identity is sovereignty, and therefore reciprocity, and therefore reciprocal insurance of sovereignty and reciprocity.

    Ergo, there is no condition under which untruthful speech does not violate reciprocity and therefore sovereignty, and therefore insurance of reciprocity and sovereignty.

    Either you can warranty your words our you are externalizing costs of doing so onto others.

    Truthful – meaning warrantied – speech doesn’t violate reciprocity. Un-warrantied speech does.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 11:40:00 UTC

  • —“But What Did Rothbard Innovate?”—

    —“BUT WHAT DID ROTHBARD INNOVATE?”— 1 – (Respectfully) I always think that’s a rather ridiculous question since of empiricism (Aristotle), Self Improvement(Zeno), Moral Literature (Plato), and Rational Mythology (Augustine), it’s easy to state that all of philosophy is merely footnotes stated in current vocabulary. 2 – My reading of rothbard, particularly “for a new liberty” was that he was (a) trying to restated jewish borderland (ukrainian) low trust ethics, in anglo-jeffersonian high trust terms, and (b) trying to reduce social science to an informal logic. Did he or did Hoppe? 3 – My reading (because I learned it from him) is that Hoppe completed that program, unfortunately, using Kantian > Marxist rationalism, rather than anglo empiricism (law). I just converted it to scientific rather than justificationary prose. 4 – Every thinker is only partly right. My beef with rothbard is that he conflated low trust ethics with high trust ethics, and conducted an pseudoscientific war on the commons as marx did on private property. The only one who was right was Hayek: it’s all just reducible to law.

  • —“But What Did Rothbard Innovate?”—

    —“BUT WHAT DID ROTHBARD INNOVATE?”— 1 – (Respectfully) I always think that’s a rather ridiculous question since of empiricism (Aristotle), Self Improvement(Zeno), Moral Literature (Plato), and Rational Mythology (Augustine), it’s easy to state that all of philosophy is merely footnotes stated in current vocabulary. 2 – My reading of rothbard, particularly “for a new liberty” was that he was (a) trying to restated jewish borderland (ukrainian) low trust ethics, in anglo-jeffersonian high trust terms, and (b) trying to reduce social science to an informal logic. Did he or did Hoppe? 3 – My reading (because I learned it from him) is that Hoppe completed that program, unfortunately, using Kantian > Marxist rationalism, rather than anglo empiricism (law). I just converted it to scientific rather than justificationary prose. 4 – Every thinker is only partly right. My beef with rothbard is that he conflated low trust ethics with high trust ethics, and conducted an pseudoscientific war on the commons as marx did on private property. The only one who was right was Hayek: it’s all just reducible to law.

  • “BUT WHAT DID ROTHBARD INNOVATE?”— 1 – (Respectfully) I always think that’s a

    —“BUT WHAT DID ROTHBARD INNOVATE?”—

    1 – (Respectfully) I always think that’s a rather ridiculous question since of empiricism (Aristotle), Self Improvement(Zeno), Moral Literature (Plato), and Rational Mythology (Augustine), it’s easy to state that all of philosophy is merely footnotes stated in current vocabulary.

    2 – My reading of rothbard, particularly “for a new liberty” was that he was (a) trying to restated jewish borderland (ukrainian) low trust ethics, in anglo-jeffersonian high trust terms, and (b) trying to reduce social science to an informal logic. Did he or did Hoppe?

    3 – My reading (because I learned it from him) is that Hoppe completed that program, unfortunately, using Kantian > Marxist rationalism, rather than anglo empiricism (law). I just converted it to scientific rather than justificationary prose.

    4 – Every thinker is only partly right. My beef with rothbard is that he conflated low trust ethics with high trust ethics, and conducted an pseudoscientific war on the commons as marx did on private property. The only one who was right was Hayek: it’s all just reducible to law.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 10:52:00 UTC

  • Marx stopped writing after reading menger and realizing he was wrong. but he kep

    Marx stopped writing after reading menger and realizing he was wrong. but he kept up pretenses of working to maintain financial support by Engels – marx was a perfect marxist: a parasite.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-17 07:55:44 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974917186421772288

    Reply addressees: @npdrifter @TorontoStar

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974860888317374464

    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/974860888317374464

  • Um. Zizek practices critique. He isn’t actually directly in favor of anything, h

    Um. Zizek practices critique. He isn’t actually directly in favor of anything, he just criticizes everything. Why?Because nothing he wants is possible, and if stated positively we’d walk away shaking our heads. But Both of them are Plato’s children and a conversation interesting.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 22:16:16 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974771355248979968

  • Um. Zizek practices critique. He isn’t actually directly in favor of anything, h

    Um. Zizek practices critique. He isn’t actually directly in favor of anything, he just criticizes everything. Why?Because nothing he wants is possible, and if stated positively we’d walk away shaking our heads. But Both of them are Plato’s children and a conversation interesting.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 22:16:06 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974771314371293186

    Reply addressees: @NewPopLit

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/970864336192311297

    IN REPLY TO:

    @NewPopLit

    WE FULLY realize the challenges involved in staging the #JordanPeterson versus #SlavojZizek debate. Will be talking with a prospective promotional partner this week. Already scouting venues. Researching the right moderator. AND, the format/topics crucial to make the event great–

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/970864336192311297

  • Marxism, Socialism, Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism are categorical names we

    Marxism, Socialism, Cultural Marxism and Postmodernism are categorical names we give to pseudoscientific intellectual movements that arose in response to Maxwell, Darwin, Menger, Spencer, and Nietzsche. They’re just Abrahamism (Judaism/Christinity/Islam) in pseudoscientific prose

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 22:05:19 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974768599771570176

    Reply addressees: @npdrifter @TorontoStar

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974764957316214784

    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/974764957316214784

  • Yes, well, that’s my criticism. My only criticism of him actually. The Myth(Hype

    Yes, well, that’s my criticism. My only criticism of him actually. The Myth(Hyperbole), the Novel(Archetypes), The history(Descriptions) are free of fictionalism, while it was Abrahamic Parable, Analogy, Obscurantism, Fictionalism, and suggestion that made a dark age.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 21:55:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974766058254028801

    Reply addressees: @kamaelSH

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974266591348187137

    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/974266591348187137

  • Apparently you don’t know the difference between Psychology (cognitive biases),

    Apparently you don’t know the difference between Psychology (cognitive biases), ‘Demonstrated Preference’ and Bias (Truth vs Reporting), and Psychologism (pseudoscientific name calling). 😉 BTW: Superiority is demonstrable everywhere in nature by results of competition by action.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-03-16 21:38:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/974761867854991362

    Reply addressees: @Jory_Nal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/970689939238260737

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jory_Nal

    This thesis makes #Nazis upset.

    Clearly worth reading then.

    For the idiot #JordanBPeterson I’d note that #narcissism is to REFUSE to preface your view with its biases, FAILING to see conflations in view as privelege, and pretending to objectivity as one spouts idiosyncracy. https://t.co/OeXFC7jRmU

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/970689939238260737