Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Rothbard Hijacked the term, and he advocates for Cosmopolitan libertine anarcho-

    Rothbard Hijacked the term, and he advocates for Cosmopolitan libertine anarcho-capitalism – and not liberty.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 16:36:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761239382879772672

    Reply addressees: @AltRightJoseph @kyramarat1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/761238433557807104

    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/761238433557807104

  • Rothbardianism has nothing to do with liberty, and everything to do with immoral

    http://twitter.com/curtdoolittle/status/761247767968772096/photo/1?utm_source=fb&utm_medium=fb&utm_campaign=curtdoolittle&utm_content=761247767968772096Here: Rothbardianism has nothing to do with liberty, and everything to do with immorality.#tcot #tlot #nrx #altright https://t.co/eq6kjW9W4w

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 13:09:00 UTC

  • SORRY BOB, YOU CAN’T PROFESSIONALIZE PROGRAMMING. ITS JUST THE NEWEST OF THE TRA

    SORRY BOB, YOU CAN’T PROFESSIONALIZE PROGRAMMING. ITS JUST THE NEWEST OF THE TRADES.

    (computer science, programming, sociology of technology)

    Bob Martin, like many of the Agile leadership, dreams of a return to the original history of programming as an art practiced by professional scientists, engineers, and mathematicians. His hopes that programming will join the ranks of the other professions: accounting, law, and medicine. He correctly identifies the problem that given the rate of expansion of our industry, the exaggerated demand, and the constant entry of many young people means that the majority of programmers are unprofessional. Meaning that they are unable to manage themselves, and take responsibilty for the scope, time, budget, and quality of deliverables.

    But while where bob envisions a profession, I am absolutely certain I see a trade: a hierarchy of skill sets from cleanup crews (support desks) to maintenance crews (IT departments), to refurbishment crews (ongoing development and maintenance), to construction crews ( ordinary web, enterprise, and application developers) to retail architects (small systems) to commercial architects (large systems), to specialty suppliers (drivers, frameworks, tools, IDEs, operating sytsems), to Monumental architects (for government and the international industries). The secret in these industries is that it’s the suppliers, not the architects or the craftsmen that possess the material knowledge, that architects and craftsmen rely upon.

    Nick Carr predicted the deflation of IT years ago and IT has already become a tradesman’s occupation in a hierarchy culminating in hosting centers. He did not address programming specifically that I recall.

    Perhaps we might consider advanced degrees, but we already have them. Unfortunately those degrees are just as unpredictive of market survivability as architectural degrees are predictive of market survivability. The only proof of market surivability is the market, or insurance and bonding where there is skin-in-the-game.

    I can easily see a future where there is an equivalent to a building code for software, and architects and development leads are bonded. this would create a semi-professional trade where chaos reigns.

    The problem is of course, that while we can establish codes for recreational, residential, light commercial, heavy commercial, light industrial, heavy industrial, agrarian, grazing and forresting, we would have to also produce codes for each of these. ISO9000 makes very little sense really, just as many other regulatory hurdles that claim some degree of extreme, make little sense – and we would just create a black market for the offshoring of software development.

    Quality and Certainty increase price dramatically. And software is still too useful and too cheap, and without sufficient damage – at least in commercial settings – to drive up its cost to the point where it’s not worth taking the risk for liability reasons rather than cost reasons.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kieve, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-04 04:28:00 UTC

  • THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSA

    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/04/opinion/there-is-no-scientific-method.html?rref=collection%2Fcolumn%2Fthe-stone&_r=0ACTUALLY, THERE IS A SCIENTIFIC METHOD. ITS JUST NOT PECULIAR TO SCIENCE. ITS THE UNIVERSAL EPISTEMIC METHOD, BUT ONLY SCIENTISTS PRACTICE IT WITH ANY DILIGENCE.

    Just as we can test axiomatic(declarative) systems for consistency dimension-by-dimension;

    Say, like:

    -> identity(pairing off) -> arithmetic(number), -> geometry(space), -> calculus (motion) -> equlibria (stocastics) ->

    And like:

    -> length,-> width,-> area,-> volume,-> change,-> motion ->

    We can also test theoretic (descriptive) systems, like:

    -> Reason, -> Rationalism, -> Logic, -> Empiricism

    We can test also each dimension of the entirety of reality:

    1 – categorical consistency (identity)

    2 – internal consistency (logic)

    3 – external consistency (empiricism)

    4 – existential possibility (operationalism)

    5 – rational possibility (morality)

    6 – scope accountability (full accounting, limits, and parsimony)

    So there is a scientific method, because scientists are the only ones who use it with any degree of discipline:

    “My warranty that I have done due diligence in testing categorical internal and external consistency, existential and rational possibility, and scope accountability.”

    If an individual has done due diligence against each dimension it is almost impossible for him to engage in:

    1 – error

    2 – bias

    3 – wishful thinking

    4 – suggestion

    5 – overloading

    6 – obscurantism

    7 – pseudoscience

    8 – deceit

    Given that our information is never complete, and if it is complete we speak in tautology not truth, then we can never know we speak the truth even if we do so. What we can know is that we have done due diligence against speaking falsehood.

    That is the best that we can do.

    And this is what it means to “Testify”.

    And that is what it means to be a member of western civilization: to learn to do such due diligence that whenever you speak, you give testimony. It may not be true but you warranty that you have done your duty not to state a falsehood.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-03 09:46:00 UTC

  • How could you walk away from the Manning and Snowden releases thinking that our

    How could you walk away from the Manning and Snowden releases thinking that our state and intel groups could even organize a dinner party?

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-02 16:19:00 UTC

  • The libertarians are going crazy. I asked a few questions about how this sort of

    The libertarians are going crazy.

    I asked a few questions about how this sort of culling would be analogous to hangings in early Europe.

    I also asked about why they think the west did so well.

    The consensus being the west created a strong economy that gave us the middle class.

    It’s so difficult to raise the idea that maybe eugenics by design or proxy prevented predation and allowed the peace and cooperation to secure economic development.

    It really is a libertarian fantasy that man was oppressed as opposed to domesticated.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-02 12:21:00 UTC

  • WHAT BAD ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS DO…. Listened to a roundtable of Philosophers f

    WHAT BAD ACADEMIC PHILOSOPHERS DO….

    Listened to a roundtable of Philosophers from The New School discuss the questions “what is philosophy” and “is it relevant”, and was … exasperated.

    There were four basic themes to their (Marxist) discourse:

    1) the did not seem to grasp the spectrum of ‘comparative’ or perhaps ‘calculative’ methods, and simply referred to different disciplines instead of the properties that these methods include and test, and exclude and do not test.

    2) They do not understand that most of what they are saying are mere word games: they start with a term and try to define it’s meaning, rather than start with a problem and solve it, or start with a term and see what it CAN ONLY mean.

    3) As Marxists they are desperately trying to create a verbal religion wich will provide either the skepticism or authority of religion in order to avoid the obvious evidence of Darwinian necessity.

    4) They were trapped into the fallacy of seeking the ‘truth’ while at the same time seeking to construct a lie, and of course this is the reason for their intellectual struggle.

    There was only one philosopher (Cornell West) who I would find interesting to debate, because he seeks to avoid the truth in order to find peace in inferiority. I have compassion for this problem. But I solve it through trade which costs, but does not create conflict, not through denial and deceit which costs because it creates conflict. The Buddhists and Stoics’s solved this underclass problem of acceptance through behavioral modification. The stoics truthfully and the Buddhists … I guess pseudoscientifically or pre-scientifically if that’s possible. The Hindus created a history-mythology which is impenetrable to the rest of us. Everyone in the three ‘books’ religions just lied about it, so that they could pretend to solve it.

    (Wrote something wonderful … and fb ate it. I swear I’m going to intentionally install my own keylogger so that there is always some record of my scribblings.)

    PHILOSOPHY: (quick sketch) Transcendence.

    PERSONAL(epistemology). Avoid false knowledge. Discover useful (~true) knowledge. By the use of reason. Using Methods of Reason: narrative(communication), rational(comparison), rationalism(non-contradiction), logic(internal consistency), cooperation(ethical consistency), physics (empirical and operational consistency), testimonialism (truth). This provides us with Personal Transcendence: The Hero’s Journey. Philosophy can be performed in fantasy narrative, in historical narrative, in rational and logical (set) argument, in empirical, and in testimonial terms. But throughout we are Loading, Unloading, Imagining, Comparing, Valuing, and Deciding. All that differs is our skill in each method, and whether we wish to influence (loading-empath), deceive (obscurantism, suggestion), or persuade (truth-objectivity).

    POLITICAL (cooperation)

    Avoid error and deception, discover utility and truth. Using the methods of reason, and the methods of argument:

    Group Transcendence via persuasion.

    PHYSICAL (physics)

    Transformation via action:

    AESTHETIC (biological)

    The Goal of Transformation.

    The Useful(actionable), True(Ethical), The Moral(Good), The Beautiful(Bounty/Fertility/Content/Perfection)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-02 05:50:00 UTC

  • JOURNALISM /www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-tries-to-clarify-ukraine-comments-15

    http://www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-tries-to-clarify-ukraine-comments-155957129.htmlDISHONEST JOURNALISM

    /www.yahoo.com/news/donald-trump-tries-to-clarify-ukraine-comments-155957129.html

    How can you possibly misunderstand Trump in the context of this conversation unless you’re TRYING to be dishonest?

    Trump’s media-friendly colloquialisms converted to complete sentences:

    “Mark it down: Putin will not invade Ukraine on my watch”

    “The people of Crimea have decided to stick with Russia and it’s hard to argue with that”

    Apparently, the reporter doesn’t grasp that Trump is honest but careless because it always works in his favor: He is singlehandedly ending the media’s influence on the electoral process. And that is why his supporters admire him. They are hoping trump will end the century of pseudoscience and propaganda we call ‘political correctness’.

    TRUTH

    Crimea was a Russian possession and its inclusion with Ukraine a bureaucratic snafu under the late soviets.

    Crimea is Russia’s only warm water port. Strategically there is no comparison for the united states. Only china’s dependence upon the south china sea compares to Russia’s dependence upon the warm water port.

    The Donbas Basin bordering Russia is where the Soviets built many of their arms factories – and without those factories, the Russian army could not continue to modernize – their plans would have been set back as much as a decade.

    Putin ‘panicked’ when Yakunovych (the corrupt ex president) arrived in Moscow and said that the Ukrainian revolution was a western coup (it was a local reaction by nearly everyone in Ukraine to the decision not to join the EU and save the Ukrainian economy, and her people, from constant poverty.) When the fires of revolution started in Moscow and St Petersburg He panicked further.

    Instead of calling western leaders and saying “I am sorry that I must do this but it is a strategic necessity that Russia cannot do without and we will compensate the Ukrainians with discounted petroleum products for decades to pay for it”, he used reverse asymmetric warfare, and captured Crimea and started the fighting in the Donbas. Then he sent ‘little green men’ to capture Crimea, more to invade the Donbas, armed the local unions and gangsters to the teeth, and sent waves of 200 to 400 white trucks with so-called ’emergency supplies’ to dismantle the equipment at the arms factories and, ship it back to Russia where the plants could be reconstructed and the maintenance and repair of the Russian military could continue.

    Russians are who they are for the simple reason that they cannot believe Americans are as naive as we have demonstrated that we are with our idealism. Putin was happy to join nato and the west. It is incomprehensible to Putin that he must conduct an HONEST educational campaign to win over the American people first. And incomprehensible to him that our state department is stupid enough to ask Russia to follow regular process for such things. This is not how ‘things are done’ in Russia. They do not beg.

    This is something Trump understands.

    That is why he doesn’t speak in platitudes.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-08-01 13:35:00 UTC

  • Rothbard and mises are pretty easy to ‘put down’. It doesn’t mean that they didn

    Rothbard and mises are pretty easy to ‘put down’. It doesn’t mean that they didn’t make contributions. But that those contributions are a fractional part of their works, and that their greater ambitions: mises to cast economics as a branch of logic rather than the science of cooperation; and Rothbard to cast low trust intersubjectively verifiable property rights of ghettos, bazaars and borderlands tolerated by empires as sufficient for the construction of a condition of liberty in their absence.

    I think what we are seeing is the ‘abandonment of hope’ that any ideology can obtain consensus by consensus, and instead that any model must be obtained by force.

    (_ Including those models of: authoritarian utopian universalist jews (socialists), authoritarian utopian universalist jews (necons), authoritarian universalist Christians (progressives), particularist classical liberals (American contractualism/constitutionalists), particularist authoritarian familialists (social conservatives), highly particularist reactionary conservatives ( hard right ), reactionary separatist jews and Christians (libertarians), and utopian reactionary separatists (left libertarians). _)

    The corporate model failed. The real problem we face is that we will appeal to Ceasars unless we find an institutional solution to heterogeneous polities, and leave behind the monopoly majoritarianism of small homogenous and capital constrained polities which has clearly failed to scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 15:08:00 UTC

  • If you are still an anarcho capitalist, there is hope: we can cure you. You need

    If you are still an anarcho capitalist, there is hope: we can cure you.

    You need no longer play a useful idiot on behalf of cosmopolitan pseudoscience.

    Although honestly it’s kind of hard to imagine people still suffer from it.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-31 11:35:00 UTC