Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN CREATE A MONOPOLY POLITY IS FALSE. Peter Boettke (Rev

    THE ASSUMPTION THAT WE CAN CREATE A MONOPOLY POLITY IS FALSE.

    Peter Boettke

    (Revisiting your post after some contemplation)

    The assumption upon which your argument rests, progressivism rests, libertarianism rests, and conservatism rests – in all their forms – because that assumption is common to all enlightenment visions, of all classes, from all societies, is that the universalism of domestic religion, can be achieved in domestic government (the production of commons), just as the left’s vision is that universalism of domestic religion can be achieved in the market (the production, distribution, and consumption of goods and services).

    But what does the evidence tell us? And what can we operationally hypothesize are the reasons for that evidence?

    Evidence is that religions are intolerant, that commons production is only slightly less intolerant, that markets are the least intolerant, but that religion, commons production and market production are all intolerant. But why?

    Well in religion we have relative equality of costs (normative) all of which are voluntary – all costs are exitable. In commons, we have asymmetric costs (material and normative), some are relevant or irrelevant, and some are exitable, some are not exitable. The material, inexitable, and relevant costs create conflicts. The market is highly demanding of normative and material costs, is not just relevant but necessary, and is no longer exitable unless you’re a village farmer in the temperate latitudes.

    What we see happening is the worldwide realization that the promise of monopoly that we see in norm and religion is not possible with government – and only silly people (Marxist utopians and their descendants) assumed it was with market.

    And we have all lost faith with the ability to convert others to our preferences. Why? Because both our moral intuitions and our voting patterns are little more than expressions of our reproductive strategy, reflecting our reproductive, cooperative, and associative desirability.

    So we have post-monopoly choices now in the production of commons:

    (1) evolve the government to include a market for commons, and create a mix of economic orders fulfilling the needs of the different classes. or (2) divide into smaller states which can retain monopoly processes yet provide a diversity of economic and political orders.

    (3) Restore the central object of policy to nation, tribe, and family, under which we seem to naturally create redistributive orders that appeal to all members of all classes, (4) return to authoritarian imperialism (russia/china/islamia) to suppress differences between the classes at the expense of corruption in all its forms.

    Now, the problem is, that the various models are deterministic in their outcomes: if we do not treat reproduction (the organization of reproduction) with the same relative value as production and consumption (the voluntary organization of production), then the future is a pretty clear one: South American/Hindu castes and favelas, or chinese/russian master-tribe imperialism, European manorialism, Jewish/Muslim perpetual tribalism.

    The fundamental flaw under the western Christian aristocratic liberal (classical liberal) model, is that man was oppressed and able to join the middle class with aristocratic virtues.

    The data started coming out more clearly last year, but it’s been obvious to conservatives (western aristocracy) intuitionistically forever: mankind was not oppressed, it was forcibly domesticated against the reproductive interests of the lower class through a continuous process indifferent from how we domesticated our animals, our plants, and our territories.

    And every individual at the bottom is more costly than every individual at the top is beneficial. We cannot maintain a condition of liberty unless Pareto rules: the 80% of the capital in the hands of 2-% of the population must be sufficient to construct a voluntary organization of production out of a hierarchy of incentives each of which must be marginally different enough for individuals to choose to act productively rather than parasitically.

    Liberty is the product the use of common law to create limited inequality of genetic value expressed as demonstrated productivity in reproduction, production of goods and services, or in the production of commons.

    It’s just math. There isn’t any way out of it. Liberty is, like it’s more honest conservative (aristocratic egalitarian) parent, the product of eugenics: domestication of man producing a superior product: subsequent generations.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-30 03:46:00 UTC

  • CAPLAN ALWAYS REQUIRES A TABLESPOON OF SALT Caplan’s opinion, like most of his o

    CAPLAN ALWAYS REQUIRES A TABLESPOON OF SALT

    Caplan’s opinion, like most of his opinions, is not about western civilization in the same sense as westerners use the term in the Greco/Roman, Germanic, or Anglo, American, French, and German enlightenment thinkers: as the struggle for rule of law and truth, goodness and beauty.

    Instead, Caplan’s misattribution of ‘western civilization’ is the Cosmopolitan (Ashkenazi) enlightenment vision of a universal market of high consumption combined with the British Imperial Marketplace that transformed British civilization from a germanic Hanseatic one prior to 1830’s expansion of the industrial revolution, to a purely commercial international one after 1830, under Disraeli and Gladstone.

    Once you understand that he is not talking about western civilization at all, but cosmopolitan, his arguments are a little more transparent – and always consistent.

    The west didn’t develop first, it developed fastest. Why? It’s counter-intuitive: martial epistemology and the oath of the intitatic brotherhood of soldiers, the economics of concentrating family wealth into technology (bronze, horses, chariots and their descendants) for use by professional warriors, and the voluntary construction of armies from these voluntary associations. The reward for which was enfranchisement in freedom: the reciprocal insurance of one’s property from theft and conquest. Conversely given the wetness of our terrain, and its oceans, seas, and rivers, we never had to create a monopoly organization to control irrigation that caused the centralization of authority and capital in the flood-river civilizations. Instead, we constructed manorialism, which was the control of territory and its allocation to those best able to use it.

    Out of these conditions we developed argument, reason, common law, natural law, jury, senate, independent judiciary, private property, contract.

    And these processes from ideas, to organizations, to production to institutions, to armies can adapt faster as a group than any other known human social order.

    So the west defeated the rest not because it was first, because it was fastest. And it was fastest for the simple reason that we discovered ‘truth’ in the objective sense, and it was more valuable to us than the propaganda and deception necessary for central governments to organize multitudes for alternative, more communal, means of production.

    We discovered truth. Truth gave us trust. Trust gave us velocity. And we were (and are) faster than the rest because of it.

    Truth is the secret of the west.

    (That and that we’re the most eugenic civilization aside from the Ashkenazim).

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-28 08:05:00 UTC

  • LIBERTINES AND SJW’S ALIKE Apparently, the technique of using cap-headlines on p

    LIBERTINES AND SJW’S ALIKE

    Apparently, the technique of using cap-headlines on posts is offensive to Rothbardians, who need a safe place – right next to the Social Justice Warriors – that is free of ratio-scientific argument, and where they can desperately cling to their collective suspension of disbelief free of threats that would contradict their self-worth-sustaining variation of right-Marxist ideology.

    Let me help you: incentives. While neither a commune without property or a Private Voluntary Society with property is possible for the same reasons: incentives. And why? Because with or without property (a) neither can hold territory from competitors, and so must be held as a ‘ghetto’ by a political entity that can, and (b) communes that depend on normative and institutional communism (rothbardian institutional communism), and communes that depend on normative, institutional, and propertied communism (marxist total communism), both lack sufficient incentives to survive competition from non-communist political orders.

    Why? Because private, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property is a competitive advantage.

    Rothbardianism is just normative and institutional communism, as a proposed subsitute for total communism.

    private property, shareholder property, common property, normative property, institutional property, territorial property: all groups need them to resist competition from other groups.

    There is no free ride, and no discount available on the range of capital one must protect in order to create liberty.

    We must protect ALL Property in ALL forms from parasitism and free riding if we are to create a polity capable of both the incentives to attract, and incentives to retain a population

    The age of wandering shepherds and merchants ended. We call those people vagrants, unassimilated immigrant underclasses, gypsies, diasporic financiers and traders: a spectrum of free riders (parasites) And they exist only with permission of the hosts that DO pay the high costs of protecting private, shareholder, common, normative, institutional, and territorial property.

    Humans organize. That the kind of people attracted to rothbardianism are those who are less desirable to organize with is the explanation of why they find the idea of an ‘organization’ which asks no common costs of its members. That does not mean these same people can form a polity capable of competitive survival even by incentives to join and stay. It is still preferable to live in a city or the country instead of (costly) suburbia – which is why people do it.

    Now, we can construct a contractual society on the anglo model, which creates a market for relationships, a market for private property, a market for shareholder property, a market for commons, and a market for warriors to defend the commons, all within a monopoly we call natural law.

    And in this system all property is private. But one cannot escape paying for the construction and maintenance of that society even if that society is constructed for the thorough suppression of free riding on material goods and services.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-21 23:12:00 UTC

  • CRITICISM: CURT, YOU”RE A MATERIALIST AND THAT’S INSUFFICIENT FOR A PHILOSOPHICA

    CRITICISM: CURT, YOU”RE A MATERIALIST AND THAT’S INSUFFICIENT FOR A PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK

    —“Limiting your philosophy to pure materialism is a trap and this is what you promote here.”—

    That is because you wish something from me that I do not provide, and what I provide inhibits you in obtaining what you desire.

    What I promote is “the other side of the coin”.

    For those who are weak need guidance.

    For those who are strong, how to rule.

    Those who need guidance seek ideas and inspiration that provide the greatest return.

    Those who need to choose between conflicts need methods of decision making that cause the least harm.

    Hence we have lower class religion, middle-class philosophy, upper middle-class science, and upper-class rule of law.

    I am not writing a middle-class philosophy a lower class philosophy but a method of rule that makes maximum Liberty possible.

    What people do with that Liberty is not my interest or problem. That is a problem for artists, and priests and mothers.

    Creating the privilege of Liberty is my concern because without it they do not possess that luxury.

    So if you need leadership and guidance and inspiration and emotional reward then you are someone who must be ruled.

    If you seek the boundaries of your power so that you remain powerful enough to create liberty for eternity then that is my objective.

    We men are unequal and perform different functions.

    – Aristocracy judges.

    – Priests advocate.

    – Merchants and craftsman produce.

    – Women bear and rear.

    Simple minds seek a narrative conflation with which to produce a single axis of decidability because this is either all they know how to do or all they are cognitively able to do.

    I produce a de-conflated equilibrium of causal axis that is useful for those who require greater precision and who can and desire to work with the equilibrial forces that exist in man and nature and in which man continuously seeks an equilibrium – and equilibrium that if ever obtained would result not in optimums but fragility, stagnation, and eventual loss to the red queen.

    Now I am a charitable teacher. But this is very far above you. And you might consider pondering it rather than struggling so desperately to maintain your self-confidence in the single axis conflationary methods of decision-making that make you only slightly better at human cognition than a kindergartener.

    —“You are (only) human”—

    Yes, I am human. But by any measure, I have an extraordinary talent for analytic deconflation and the distillation of properties into first causes that is no doubt an accident of birth.

    Thus Endeth the rather futile lesson.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-21 10:34:00 UTC

  • IF ANY OF YOU ARE STILL DECEIVED, WE CAN CURE YOU (marxism, feminism, democratic

    IF ANY OF YOU ARE STILL DECEIVED, WE CAN CURE YOU

    (marxism, feminism, democratic secular humanism, mainstream democrat, republican, libertarian, anarcho capitalism, neo-reactionary)

    —“There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.” Here we have the means (violence) to an end (liberty).How is this not edgy consequentialism again. Fucking animals can consequentialism bro. But thanks for your concern. Holy shit utilitarianism too! It’s literally a shit smorgasbord of consequentialism! Yeah I’m into deontological things like ethics and shit”— Greg Gilson (a victim of cosmopolitan deception, and current Useful Idiot)

    Neither you nor the author of the OP seem to grasp the difference between BELIEF and the ABSENCE of demonstrated preference, and INCENTIVES and the PRESENCE of demonstrated preference. In other words, the difference between an existentially impossible model and an existentially possible one.

    Nor do you realize the difference between internally consistent but informationally incomplete, and externally non-correspondent argument, with internally consistent, informationally complete, and demonstrably correspondent argument.

    Nor do you realize that selfish(isolationist), imitative(environmental), virtue(hero), deontological(rule), and teleological (outcome), ethics constitute a spectrum of problems from total ignorance to total knowledge – and that one only chooses a lower demand for knowledge when he lacks the information to use the ethical standard that requires greater knowledge. Unless of course, he is engaged in deception wherein the use of greater knowledge and a corresponding methodology of ethics that makes use of greater knowledge, would falsify his arguments.

    Nor do you seem to realize that your form argument is constructed by the same form of deceit as marxism: wishful thinking, overloading and suggestion, and appeal to cognitive bias that grants altruistic trust to appeals to your reproductive strategy.

    Now, while it is apparent to those of us with far greater knowledge and skill, that you are the victim of various forms of overloading and suggestion that appeals to your (lackluster) reproductive strategy and limited knowledge and ability, and therefore a “useful idiot” for advocacy on behalf of the left-marxist-center-libertine-right-neocon second great rebellion against meritocratic aristocracy and western liberty, it is not apparent to you for the same reasons you are open to such relatively easy suggestion.

    But once you are made aware that you’ve been duped, the fact that you can construct an argument using philosophical terms the consequence of which you demonstrably do not grasp, there is hope that you might learn, and transcend the Second Great Deceit of Pseudoscience and Pseudorationalism, and evolve beyond Useful Idiot, and learn the method of pursuing an existentially possible form of liberty.

    If any of you are still victims of cosmopolitan pseudo-mystical, pseudo-rational, or pseudo-scientific deception, we can cure you.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    (note to readers: you might literally have to study this argument, or ask a few questions, but this is how you put an end to the Kantian fallacies that were adopted by the cosmopolitans and used to create the deep overloading fallacies in marxism, libertinism, and neo-conservativsm that made deceit by suggestion and appeal to reproductive cognitive bias possible. But remind people: if any of you are still fooled by the cosmopolitan fallacies – at any point on the ideological spectrum – there is hope: we can cure you.)

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-21 00:04:00 UTC

  • ADHERENCE TO FALSIFIED THEORIES ISN”T DEMONSTRATING INTELLIGENCE – JUST LOSS AVO

    ADHERENCE TO FALSIFIED THEORIES ISN”T DEMONSTRATING INTELLIGENCE – JUST LOSS AVOIDANCE GIVEN ONE’S OVERINVESTMENT IN MALINVESTMENT

    Sure I spent a lot of times at LvMI. But you know, once you know your theory is bullshit it’s time to seek another.

    There is only one source of liberty: the organized application of violence to suppress parasitism by all means in every area of life.

    The organization of acquisition, inventory, transformation, and consumption, the organization of reproduction, the organization of production, distribution and trade, the organization of commons production and the organization of territorial limits.

    It is by the suppression of parasitism that we create the Liberty we seek.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-20 14:58:00 UTC

  • Bruce. Please stop phoning in these freaking roles. Go back and watch yourself i

    Bruce. Please stop phoning in these freaking roles. Go back and watch yourself in the 80’s WTF is wrong with you? You were a solid bet through about 2003. Since then we saw a little effort in Looper. But you’re not working intensely for the camera, and we know you’re just phoning it in. OK? I mean you’re a freaking HERO. There are plenty of guys older than you who don’t phone in their roles. So it’s not age or ability, it’s will.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-19 13:47:00 UTC

  • You know, every libertarian goes through his period of revelation, and almost al

    You know, every libertarian goes through his period of revelation, and almost all of these poor fools write an ‘introduction to libertarianism’ of some sort as a means of trying to understand it themselves, and of sharing their revelation.

    But you know, the evidence is pretty clear: Saying something synthetic about a topic (most intellectuals) requires two years of work on top of six years of specialization. Saying something innovative and intelligent in any discipline takes six to nine years of hard work, and two to three years to write down.

    The world doesn’t need more intros. Revelations are for diaries and autobiographies.

    A PhD takes what – on average six years? The great thinkers seem to take seven to ten, or even twenty. It depends on whether they publish in the interim (wittgenstein, Nietzche) or they don’t (spinoza, kant).

    SPecialization has really hurt our intellectual movements.

    A side effect of propertarianism and testimonialism is that all disciplines can use the same language, and the same structure, and all that changes are the names and processes of specific applications in the spectrum from the subatomic physical world on one end, to epistemological truth at the other.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-19 05:55:00 UTC

  • Hopefully someone will turn 400 pages of drivel into under five pages of directl

    Hopefully someone will turn 400 pages of drivel into under five pages of directly stated theory. But that person isn’t me.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 08:48:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754598761876299776

    Reply addressees: @Wasian_NRx

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754486515900616704

    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/754486515900616704

  • It is a very poorly written work, written in postmodern, freudian, and jungian p

    It is a very poorly written work, written in postmodern, freudian, and jungian psuedoscience. Though it may still contain ideas.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-07-17 08:48:12 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754598564135829504

    Reply addressees: @Wasian_NRx

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/754486515900616704

    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/754486515900616704