Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • LONG IS WRONG: ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM CAN BE DISMISSED – AND BECAUSE IT IS IRRA

    http://c4ss.org/content/37046ROD LONG IS WRONG: ROTHBARDIAN LIBERTINISM CAN BE DISMISSED – AND BECAUSE IT IS IRRATIONAL, AND AN IMMORAL JUSTIFICATION OF PARASITISM

    The argument against the NAP is that it is irrational for one to engage in cooperation, and therefore respect property rights – which themselves are the terms of cooperation – unless the suppression of aggression against one includes the total prohibition of aggression against all that I have paid for with non-aggressive actions.

    NAP, under intersubjectively verifiable property preserves all forms of deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking while prohibiting retaliation for deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking. And it is non-rational to engage in cooperation, and therefore respect for property of *any* kind, while deceit, conspiracy and rent seeking (in fact, all acts of aggression against that which one has non-aggressively acted to obtain) are not prohibited by the agreement to cooperate.

    Why this entirely irrational Rothbardian justification we call the NAP under intersubjectively verifiable property (physical things) has survived is almost inconceivable until we recognize loading, framing, overloading, suggestion and cognitive biases plague both our arguments and our evaluation of them. And the fact that the argument itself persists, despite its irrationality, is in itself evidence of the necessity of prohibiting aggression through loading, framing, overloading, and suggestion.

    For anarchic property rights to come into existence they can only exist as a mutual prohibition on aggression against all one has obtained through non-aggression.

    The American people have staked an electoral signage at every election booth: “NO GHETTO ETHICS WANTED”

    Liberty always has been, and only can be, the result of a total prohibition on aggression against all that one has obtained without aggression, the requirement for truthful speech, a requirement for warranty of one’s speech, and the requirement that we profit only from contribution to productivity.

    These are the minimum criterion under which cooperation is rational and the common organic, polycentric law is sufficient in scope to provide a means for the resolution of differences that demand for the state is eliminated.

    As far as I know this is the end of the argument and Rothbardian ethics, and the NAP under intersubjectively verifiable property is a closed issue left open only as a desperate appeal by those with no new solution to the problem of the practical achievement of liberty.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-22 03:37:00 UTC

  • Against The Boomer-Academy’s Sale of Indulgences – A Charter for The New Reformation

    (good arguments for your use.)

    Myths About Attending College Debunked
    [C]hristopher, This self-serving post is disingenuous at best. As far as we know, right now, students learn almost nothing in university that is used in life. University largely performs a filtering and indoctrination service. So students are filtered out of the workforce by extremely expensive procedural gymnastics. They are not taught anything that helps them in the workforce. They are only taught the work discipline that was not provided to them in public k-12. We can test this argument fairly easily by employment and productivity comparisons of other northern European education systems and ours – which expensively educate far fewer, but impose far greater discipline in k-12. The empirical and honest analysis, which has been provided by economists for years now, is to (a) perform output rankings of colleges by the performance of students, giving no weight to capital resources, (b) to measure how much of the revenue capture is devoted to undergraduates and teaching professors, versus how much of the revenue is spent on dead weight (administration), profiteering (the physical plant and endowment), and graduate programs (profiteering). (c) how much retention there is of the freshman class through graduation(test of honesty rather than entrapment). (d) how much is diverted for publicity and status purposes (sports). The empirical test of education is this: If (1)overhead was capped at 15%, and (2) all but an additional 10% was required to stay within the departments that performed the teaching, and (3) if teaching and research departments were separated, and (4) if graduate programs had to be self-funding, and (5) if universities were only able to collect a percentage of income from their graduates for a period of 30 years, and so if graduates could not earn, then universities could not collect income, then what would universities teach, and how would they teach instead? That is the reform that is required. As far as we know, educational institutions since at least 1963 have provided a means of privatizing public wealth that parents could have saved for their retirements, and we have now a generation about to retire that has been sold a defective product without warranty, at the expense of their retirements, for no marginal increase in the employability of their offspring. This is era has been one of the most massive misappropriations of public wealth in western history – equal to that of the church’s selling of indulgences, and the reason for the protestant reformation against the church. The military industrial complex at very least, is a net break even for Americans because of the petro-dollar, and the regulatory capture we impose on world politics, finance and trade. But the academy literally sells indulgences: fraudulent, underperforming products without warranty, insulated from claims against warranty by the state, and the outcome of which produce seriously damaging externalities for our economy, culture, and civilization. Those are the facts. The boomer-generation’s Academy has not only been a bastion of pseudoscience in the social sciences, instituted a permanent degradation of the western canon, and has been a bastion of financial privatization on a scale we have not seen since the late middle ages. We should note that all of the sources you quote are paid interests, and that none of the sources you list are independent economists specializing in education, nor advocates of education reform. We are conservatives. We are supposed to be the people that tell the truth. Postmodern deceits, pseudoscience, statistical deception, propagandism, and reality-by-chanting are tactics of, and mastered by, the left. There is no room in conservatism (aristocracy) for foolery and deceit. Civilization is too important a craft to be left to the foolish and corrupt. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Against The Boomer-Academy’s Sale of Indulgences – A Charter for The New Reformation

    (good arguments for your use.)

    Myths About Attending College Debunked
    [C]hristopher, This self-serving post is disingenuous at best. As far as we know, right now, students learn almost nothing in university that is used in life. University largely performs a filtering and indoctrination service. So students are filtered out of the workforce by extremely expensive procedural gymnastics. They are not taught anything that helps them in the workforce. They are only taught the work discipline that was not provided to them in public k-12. We can test this argument fairly easily by employment and productivity comparisons of other northern European education systems and ours – which expensively educate far fewer, but impose far greater discipline in k-12. The empirical and honest analysis, which has been provided by economists for years now, is to (a) perform output rankings of colleges by the performance of students, giving no weight to capital resources, (b) to measure how much of the revenue capture is devoted to undergraduates and teaching professors, versus how much of the revenue is spent on dead weight (administration), profiteering (the physical plant and endowment), and graduate programs (profiteering). (c) how much retention there is of the freshman class through graduation(test of honesty rather than entrapment). (d) how much is diverted for publicity and status purposes (sports). The empirical test of education is this: If (1)overhead was capped at 15%, and (2) all but an additional 10% was required to stay within the departments that performed the teaching, and (3) if teaching and research departments were separated, and (4) if graduate programs had to be self-funding, and (5) if universities were only able to collect a percentage of income from their graduates for a period of 30 years, and so if graduates could not earn, then universities could not collect income, then what would universities teach, and how would they teach instead? That is the reform that is required. As far as we know, educational institutions since at least 1963 have provided a means of privatizing public wealth that parents could have saved for their retirements, and we have now a generation about to retire that has been sold a defective product without warranty, at the expense of their retirements, for no marginal increase in the employability of their offspring. This is era has been one of the most massive misappropriations of public wealth in western history – equal to that of the church’s selling of indulgences, and the reason for the protestant reformation against the church. The military industrial complex at very least, is a net break even for Americans because of the petro-dollar, and the regulatory capture we impose on world politics, finance and trade. But the academy literally sells indulgences: fraudulent, underperforming products without warranty, insulated from claims against warranty by the state, and the outcome of which produce seriously damaging externalities for our economy, culture, and civilization. Those are the facts. The boomer-generation’s Academy has not only been a bastion of pseudoscience in the social sciences, instituted a permanent degradation of the western canon, and has been a bastion of financial privatization on a scale we have not seen since the late middle ages. We should note that all of the sources you quote are paid interests, and that none of the sources you list are independent economists specializing in education, nor advocates of education reform. We are conservatives. We are supposed to be the people that tell the truth. Postmodern deceits, pseudoscience, statistical deception, propagandism, and reality-by-chanting are tactics of, and mastered by, the left. There is no room in conservatism (aristocracy) for foolery and deceit. Civilization is too important a craft to be left to the foolish and corrupt. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.

  • THE ACADEMY’S SALE OF INDULGENCES – THE CHARTER FOR THE NEW REFORMATION (good ar

    http://www.theimaginativeconservative.org/2015/04/myths-about-attending-college-debunked.html#AGAINST THE ACADEMY’S SALE OF INDULGENCES – THE CHARTER FOR THE NEW REFORMATION

    (good arguments for your use.)

    Christopher,

    This self-serving post is disingenuous at best.

    As far as we know, right now, students learn almost nothing in university that is used in life. University largely performs a filtering and indoctrination service. So students are filtered out of the workforce by extremely expensive procedural gymnastics. They are not taught anything that helps them in the workforce. They are only taught the work discipline that was not provided to them in public k-12. We can test this argument fairly easily by employment and productivity comparisons of other northern European education systems and ours – which expensively educate far fewer, but impose far greater discipline in k-12.

    The empirical and honest analysis, which has been provided by economists for years now, is to (a) perform output rankings of colleges by the performance of students, giving no weight to capital resources, (b) to measure how much of the revenue capture is devoted to undergraduates and teaching professors, versus how much of the revenue is spent on dead weight (administration), profiteering (the physical plant and endowment), and graduate programs (profiteering). (c) how much retention there is of the freshman class through graduation(test of honesty rather than entrapment). (d) how much is diverted for publicity and status purposes (sports).

    The empirical test of education is this: If (1)overhead was capped at 15%, and (2) all but an additional 10% was required to stay within the departments that performed the teaching, and (3) if teaching and research departments were separated, and (4) if graduate programs had to be self-funding, and (5) if universities were only able to collect a percentage of income from their graduates for a period of 30 years, and so if graduates could not earn, then universities could not collect income, then what would universities teach, and how would they teach instead?

    That is the reform that is required.

    As far as we know, educational institutions since at least 1963 have provided a means of privatizing public wealth that parents could have saved for their retirements, and we have now a generation about to retire that has been sold a defective product without warranty, at the expense of their retirements, for no marginal increase in the employability of their offspring.

    This is era has been one of the most massive misappropriations of public wealth in western history – equal to that of the church’s selling of indulgences, and the reason for the protestant reformation against the church. The military industrial complex at very least, is a net break even for Americans because of the petro-dollar, and the regulatory capture we impose on world politics, finance and trade. But the academy literally sells indulgences: fraudulent, underperforming products without warranty, insulated from claims against warranty by the state, and the outcome of which produce seriously damaging externalities for our economy, culture, and civilization.

    Those are the facts. The boomer-generation’s Academy has not only been a bastion of pseudoscience in the social sciences, instituted a permanent degradation of the western canon, and has been a bastion of financial privatization on a scale we have not seen since the late middle ages.

    We should note that all of the sources you quote are paid interests, and that none of the sources you list are independent economists specializing in education, nor advocates of education reform.

    We are conservatives. We are supposed to be the people that tell the truth.

    Postmodern deceits, pseudoscience, statistical deception, propagandism, and reality-by-chanting are tactics of, and mastered by, the left. There is no room in conservatism (aristocracy) for foolery and deceit. Civilization is too important a craft to be left to the foolish and corrupt.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-20 07:08:00 UTC

  • THE ROTHBARDIAN DECEIT FILES: ABORTION (from elsewhere) (thread at bottom) —“T

    THE ROTHBARDIAN DECEIT FILES: ABORTION

    (from elsewhere) (thread at bottom)

    —“There’s the very Rothbardian argument that a woman has an absolute right to evict an embryo from her womb, on grounds that this embryo’s interactions with her are parasitic by default — and she’s got the right to stop parasites interacting with her.”— Johannes Meixner

    Once you grasp that the purpose of Rothbardian argument is not TRUTH, but JUSTIFICATION, you understand that it’s all irrelevant. (Actually, that it’s all dishonest. And actually, that it’s all lies.)

    As a mother, you do not have the moral justification to kill your offspring unless your offspring will kill you – all other arguments are illogical.

    (Moral rules are justificationary because they are contractual. Conversely, the search for truth is critical).

    You certainly CAN kill your offspring for other reasons, just as I can kill you for other reasons, or you can kill anyone else for other reasons. Now, you might say that killing is pragmatic – I have no problem with killing. But you cannot deceive others by obscurant argument, and that you are not killing. You are in fact, killing. NOW… As for Parasitism, a child is not parasitic for the simple reason that it is an offspring (kin). A kin is an inter-temporal investment. It is the reason that you exist. The purpose of traditional taboos is moral and logical: you should take all precautions possible so that you kill as infrequently as possible. But that said, we should preserve the stigma that one is killing, precisely because one is in fact, killing. Murder is murder. Whether we choose to prosecute murderers is a matter of willingness. But our willingness to prosecute murderers is a choice, while the act of murder is a fact.

    I have no problem with murder. I argue that we should do, and we need to do, a LOT of killing at present. But I have a problem with deceit. I cannot for the life of me understand the logic of killing the unborn and not killing the repeated violent offenders.

    (But then, that’s feminism for you: (a) women are victims and devoid of responsibility for their actions, and (b) women are fully capable of military participation, and membership in the special forces. OR (a) abortion is a woman’s right, and (b) we cannot raise animals for fur. OR (a) abortion isn’t murder, and (b) women’s almost universal insistence that their children are good, and (c) women’s almost universal defense of their criminal and murderous offspring. All speech is justification. The question is only whether we justify moral or immoral action. And moral action is that which does not break the contract for cooperation. And the contract for cooperation is one in which we do not impose costs upon others. **So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.** )

    The parasitic argument cannot hold, since demonstrated feminist behavior in all walks of personal and political life, is parasitic.

    While I could write an entire book on the subject, using thousands of similar examples, as far as I know the last sentence: ***So the basic female argument is to (a) justify her imposition of costs upon others, but (b) refuse to bear costs that are her responsibility.*** is the final word on the matter.

    Unpleasant truths are unpleasant truths.

    (Under Propertarianism all moral arguments are decidable. There are no moral paradoxes.)

    Curt Doolittle

    https://www.facebook.com/johannes.jost.meixner/posts/807604825980936

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-18 05:47:00 UTC

  • THE POSTMODERN AND FEMINIST LIARS FOR WHAT THEY ARE: PARASITES The technique we

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/jacquishine/its-a-shameSHAMING THE POSTMODERN AND FEMINIST LIARS FOR WHAT THEY ARE: PARASITES

    The technique we call Shaming (which is the public use of gossip), evolved (like gossip), as a means of controlling alphas by rallying support from many in order to limit the few.

    Gossip is one of the three possible means of social coercion:

    (1) Violence (murder, harm, loss, deprivation, threat),

    (2) Remuneration (credit, gift, payment or exchange, promise), and

    (3) Gossip (compliment, criticism, guilting, shaming, rallying, and ostracization).

    Whether Gossip, Violence or Remuneration is used, is immaterial. Gossip, Violence, and Remuneration are neutral actions. The questions are only (a) whether gossip, violence or remuneration are used to stop or prevent parasitism, or whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are used to create parasitism. And (b) whether gossip, violence, and remuneration are performed truthfully or dishonestly.

    The uncomfortable truth is that all advancement in civilization has been the result of the construction of private and semi-private (group commons) property. And that individuals have NOT BEEN OPPRESSED, but that they reproduce without the ability to support themselves, in an attempt to parasitically reproduce at the expense of others.

    In large part, the majority in the middle and upper middle classes, seek to prevent parasitism by the political elites, and seek to prevent parasitism by the lower classes who are insufficiently productive to maintain themselves – especially as technological innovation advances.

    So the feminist narrative that the author Jacqui Shine attempts to use as yet another form of shaming, is itself a deceit: she says people are oppressed when in fact they and their parents are parasites. She says the struggle throughout history was not Malthusian, but against oppression. Neither of which is true. So this entire argument is an immoral, parasitic attempt to justify the desire of women to reproduce parasitically without demonstrating that they are worthy of reproduction.

    That is the scientific and economic analysis. The moral analysis is that Jacqui’s argument is an immoral one. The logical and economic argument is that she engages in fraud as an attempt to obscure theft. And that this fraud is perpetrated by an obscurant deceit. And that she uses rallying and shaming to obscure this deceit.

    Those are the facts.

    Now, the question is, why do we not shame liars in all their parasitic forms?

    Of which Postmodernists, and Feminists are the most expert perpetrators. j

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-16 07:39:00 UTC

  • Pinker’s Criticism of Group/Multi-level Selection

    [F]irst, both Pinker and Haidt are making the enlightenment error of equality of individuals, and of individualism instead of a population of man as a division of intertemporal knowledge and labor. (See my video on the subject.) We evolve first under this inter-temporal distribution of biases, and second under cultural adaptation, and third under everything else. Genders, distribution of gender bias, and the fact that genders are constructed from a female base, guarantee that.

    Second, as far as I know, Pinker is making an argument against the evolution by multi-level selection of altruism. This is the purpose of his article. And I agree with him. And in Propertarianism I explain why.

    Third, (if you read the comments it’s obvious) is that group and multi-level selection are pretty rigorous mathematically described facts. Pinker isn’t saying that it isn’t. He’s saying that we can’t fantasize that altruism developed because of group selection (I argue that aggression defeats altruism and is currently doing so – high trust westerners are not aggressive enough.)

    Fourth, (if you read the comments) the argument is partly a problem of verbalism. And to some degree, pinker is playing too much psychologist and telling us not to think in fuzzy terms, and not so much that multi-level selection doesn’t occur. It’s that it doesn’t occur the way we think it has. Now, it is this point I disagree with since as far as I know, the very great differences between the competing populations is determined by a wide variation in the distribution of only four things: (1) intelligence, (2) aggression, (3) impulsivity, and (4) fear of unfamiliar people. And that list may be in fact reducible to two: impulsivity and intelligence. Just as a wide variety of behavior is reducible to the solipsistic(female bias) and autistic(male bias) spectrum. Great complexity arises from the interaction of only two or three spectra. Emotions are a great example: as far as I know, we have only three, and our rich range of emotional experience is produced by combinations of levels of those emotions. And as I have written extensively, all of these emotions can be explained as reactions to change in state of property-en-toto (reactions to acquisition or loss).

    Fifth, and I think this isn’t terribly complicated: norms are sticky and group strategy is sticky, and populations breed to take advantage of status under norms. This is just a mathematically describable problem and as far as I know it’s pretty solid:

    Sixth, as far as I know, Haidt’s correct identification of moral intuitions, holds under Propertarianism. So whatever Haidt’s justification for these traits, it is immaterial. In my first few propertarian arguments I made the point that MY CONTRIBUTION was to tie Haidt’s OBSERVATIONS and descriptions, to CAUSALITY. And that Propertarianism correctly describes that causality: acquisitiveness, and the utility of cooperation only in so far as it improved acquisition.

    CLOSING

    So the debate here is not concrete. Pinker is doing no more than making a cautionary argument against the development of altruism by selfish creatures, as anything other than yet another selfish act. And he is correct.

    Everyone else is saying that cultural norms drive reproductive adaptation. And they are correct. And that multi-level selection is the product of cultural biases incorporated in genes.

    So this whole argument is a lot of nonsense between geeks as to the effect of their as-yet-imprecise language on the non-scientific community. And it is not so much a debate about facts.

    And furthermore, you have to look at these men as part of the REACTION to postmodern lies – they are all engaged in trying to overthrow the deceits of 150 years of postmodern reactionary thought. I am not sure that they have (As I have) joined The Dark

    Enlightenment, in trying to overthrow not just the postmoderns and the pseudoscientists, but the enlightenment fallacy of equality and democracy. They are concerned about the consequences of language because they are well aware of the consequences of language.

  • Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman and Their Anti-Science Economics

    RE: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/friedman-ideas-great-recession-by-j–bradford-delong-2015-03

    [B]rad,


    I would counter, as I have since 2009, that you and your intellectual kindred fail to grasp that politics is moral not merely empirical. That humans are tribalists not universalists. That universalism suits the interests of the academy’s revenues, but not the interests of all polities. The human morality is roughly translatable into a prohibition on free riding. And that under plenty, humans share excess in exchange for status, and under duress humans punish free riders.

    What you have seen in the great recession is a evidence of moral expression that will always exist under democratic polities that are able to express moral instincts. Under the great recession we are punishing free riders built up under the era of plenty.

    You may call this irrational. But the use of this moral intuition is doing precisely what those who carry that instinct intuit that it should: punishing free riders – even and extreme personal expense. The middle class votes against its material interests out of altruistic punishment of free riders.

    Until we find an institutional means of controlling free riding, we will continue to see this behavior in high-trust high-altruistic-punishment societies. And it is only high trust high altruistic punishment societies that matter. Because they are always the only societies with wealth to distribute. Since those societies are the only ones that produce excesses.

    I will not live long enough I think, to restore morality to economics. But at some point someone will. Because good economics is empirical. And empirically – humans do, and must, act morally. And morality is a synonym for the prohibition on free riding.

    Democracy is incompatible with your interpretation of ‘good’ economics. And economics without morality is not scientific, but ideological and dysgenic.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • Brad DeLong and Paul Krugman and Their Anti-Science Economics

    RE: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/friedman-ideas-great-recession-by-j–bradford-delong-2015-03

    [B]rad,


    I would counter, as I have since 2009, that you and your intellectual kindred fail to grasp that politics is moral not merely empirical. That humans are tribalists not universalists. That universalism suits the interests of the academy’s revenues, but not the interests of all polities. The human morality is roughly translatable into a prohibition on free riding. And that under plenty, humans share excess in exchange for status, and under duress humans punish free riders.

    What you have seen in the great recession is a evidence of moral expression that will always exist under democratic polities that are able to express moral instincts. Under the great recession we are punishing free riders built up under the era of plenty.

    You may call this irrational. But the use of this moral intuition is doing precisely what those who carry that instinct intuit that it should: punishing free riders – even and extreme personal expense. The middle class votes against its material interests out of altruistic punishment of free riders.

    Until we find an institutional means of controlling free riding, we will continue to see this behavior in high-trust high-altruistic-punishment societies. And it is only high trust high altruistic punishment societies that matter. Because they are always the only societies with wealth to distribute. Since those societies are the only ones that produce excesses.

    I will not live long enough I think, to restore morality to economics. But at some point someone will. Because good economics is empirical. And empirically – humans do, and must, act morally. And morality is a synonym for the prohibition on free riding.

    Democracy is incompatible with your interpretation of ‘good’ economics. And economics without morality is not scientific, but ideological and dysgenic.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute
    Kiev, Ukraine.

  • DELONG AND PAUL KRUGMAN AND THEIR ANTI-EMPIRICAL ECONOMICS RE: Brad, I would cou

    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/friedman-ideas-great-recession-by-j–bradford-delong-2015-03BRAD DELONG AND PAUL KRUGMAN AND THEIR ANTI-EMPIRICAL ECONOMICS

    RE: https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/friedman-ideas-great-recession-by-j–bradford-delong-2015-03

    Brad,

    I would counter, as I have since 2009, that you and your intellectual kindred fail to grasp that politics is moral not merely empirical. That humans are tribalists not universalists. That universalism suits the interests of the academy’s revenues, but not the interests of all polities. That human morality is roughly translatable into a prohibition on free riding. And that under plenty, humans share excess in exchange for status, and under duress humans punish free riders.

    What you have seen in the great recession is a evidence of moral expression that will always exist under democratic polities that are able to express moral instincts. Under the great recession we are punishing free riders build up under the era of plenty.

    You may call this irrational. But the use of this moral intuition is doing precisely what those who carry that instinct intuit that it should: punishing free riders – even and extreme personal expense. The middle class votes against its material interests out of altruistic punishment of free riders.

    Until we find an institutional means of controlling free riding, we will continue to see this behavior in high-trust high-altruistic-punishment societies. And it is only high trust high altruistic punishment societies that matter. Because they are always the only societies with wealth to distribute. Since those societies are the only ones that produce excesses.

    I will not live long enough I think, to restore morality to economics. But at some point someone will. Because good economics is empirical. And empirically – humans do, and must, act morally. And morality is a synonym for the prohibition on free riding.

    Democracy is incompatible with your interpretation of ‘good’ economics. And economics without morality is not scientific, but ideological and dysgenic.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-04-05 14:23:00 UTC