Curt Doolittle

Form: Critique

  • Everything a (((libertarian))) Says Is a Lie.

    Mar 23, 2020, 12:08 PM

    –“Property is dirived from the axiom of self ownership ie, we own ourselves. External property is defined by labor investment – either direct labor such as, “I made this walking stick” or indirect labor such as “I bought this walking stick” or also indirectly as a title gift as “I was given this walking stick” or by contract such as, “I am making payments on this walking stick.””—JWarren Prescott

    No. Property is the result of seeking cooperation, trust, loyalty, and non-conflict between warriors dependent upon one another under the strategy and tactics of voluntary entrepreneurial warfare using maneuver. Sovereignty, and once we have sovereignty, reciprocity is required. From that all western civilization arises. Now what is difference between the PRESUMPTION of an impossibility of the sophistry of ‘self ownership’ and the evidentiary necessity of sovereignty and reciprocity among voluntary warriors (see organization of piracy). The difference is using the sophistry of self ownership to circumvent the need for a universal militia responsible for creating sovereignty and reciprocity from which property is the result. Everything a (((libertarian))) says is a lie. Let me say that again

    (a) everything a libertarian says is a lie. (b) every philosophical argument is a lie. (c) if you cannot construct an argument from physical and natural law it’s a lie. (d) people lie.

  • Everything libertarians wrote was in pursuit of unearned gains

    Mar 23, 2020, 5:00 PM

    Mises wrote logic of commodities. Learn Hayekian curves instead. Companies don’t need price signals to produce more. They need opportunity to sell more at currently imputed prices.

    Everything libertarians wrote was in pursuit of unearned gains: parasitism by plausible deniability, as a means of avoiding productivity. Why? Well, if you follow me, then you know why.

  • Everything libertarians wrote was in pursuit of unearned gains

    Mar 23, 2020, 5:00 PM

    Mises wrote logic of commodities. Learn Hayekian curves instead. Companies don’t need price signals to produce more. They need opportunity to sell more at currently imputed prices.

    Everything libertarians wrote was in pursuit of unearned gains: parasitism by plausible deniability, as a means of avoiding productivity. Why? Well, if you follow me, then you know why.

  • What Are They Trying to Steal?

    Mar 23, 2020, 5:02 PM IT DOESN’T TAKE MUCH. WHAT ARE THEY TRYING TO STEAL? Start with any progressive or libertarian premise and try to figure out what they’re trying to steal. It doesn’t take much. Start with any conservative premise and try to figure out what they’re trying to stop people from stealing. It doesn’t take much. THat’s it.

  • Criticizing Conservative vs Libertarian Thinkers

    Mar 23, 2020, 5:19 PM Why can’t we criticize conservative thinkers? Because they’re either jurists who didn’t solve the underlying problem, historians that don’t propose any meaningful solutions, moralists that have failed to defeat the false promises of the left, theologians who do nothing but change seats on the sinking ship. It’s easier to criticize libertarianism because they’re less wrong in analysis, even if they’re more wrong in presumptions of man and possible solutions. You don’t learn much from saying ‘you said nothing actionable’. You learn more from saying ‘you said something only half actionable’.

  • Criticizing Conservative vs Libertarian Thinkers

    Mar 23, 2020, 5:19 PM Why can’t we criticize conservative thinkers? Because they’re either jurists who didn’t solve the underlying problem, historians that don’t propose any meaningful solutions, moralists that have failed to defeat the false promises of the left, theologians who do nothing but change seats on the sinking ship. It’s easier to criticize libertarianism because they’re less wrong in analysis, even if they’re more wrong in presumptions of man and possible solutions. You don’t learn much from saying ‘you said nothing actionable’. You learn more from saying ‘you said something only half actionable’.

  • “do You Condone…?” Stupid Question of The Day (really)

    May 6, 2020, 11:03 AM

    —“Do you condone the IRA, Mao, Etc?”—

    What a stupid question. Really. “Do you condone prosecution of criminals” “Do you condone warfare” “Do you condone market economies” “Do you condone evolutionary necessity” “Do you condone gravity.” What is the market demand for morality(reciprocity) versus immorality (irreciprocity)? What is market demand for peace versus war? What is the limit of the utility of morality? Condone” = approve of, sanction, fail to suppress, fail to resist, fail to act to prevent some display word or deed – especially with reluctance under the presumption of an act of irreciprocity, where amoral, ethical and moral consist of non imposition of costs upon the demonstrated intersets of others with whom one or the group values cooperation within the limits of provoking retaliation. Implication(irreciprocal, harm) = criminal (direct physical), unethical (direct informational), moral (anonymous indirect informational or physical for personal gain or to prevent personal loss), evil (direct or indirect, informational or physical, loss regardless of personal gain or loss). Implication(irreciprocal, population) = scope of cooperation( inter-familial, interpersonal, inter-social, inter-political, universal). There is no morality in war. There is a demand for avoidance of harm in war. There is a market demand for harm in war. The market supplies what is necessary to prevent war, or to conduct war. This is why we are at war 2/3 of the time in human history. War for survival and persistence is the natural state of all creatures – we create political systems to limit war wether criminal, conspiratorial, political, or inter-political. Western man domesticated war largely by the Westphalian peace. We thought we could force the world into adopting the Westphalian peace. Communists ended the Westphalian peace but we nearly restored it because of our asymmetric power. Islamists copied the communists and ended the Westphalian peace. But we are unable due to dependence upon oil to resist their advancement once again after less than a century of suppressing their warfare against all civilization. So that is why we are in 4th Generation Warfare. Its why we lost in the middle east. Its’ why we are losing against china. Because we have domesticated warfare but by failing to complete the colonial program because of our world wars, we have failed to contain warfare to the Westphalian peace, and instead are reverting to natural warfare: a war of all against all where the state has lost control of actors who can create wars. The IRA demonstrated why it was possible at small scale. Mao how it was possible at large scale. The bolsheviks how it was possible from within. The communists how it was possible from within. Now the islamists are imitating the communists and undermining from within. And you wonder why I bother talking to people like you? Because I don’t blame you for intentionally being lied to and made ignorant sot that you were suckers for warfare-from within by marxism-postmodernism-feminism-hbd-denialism that unified pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial to replace christian supernaturalism, sophistry, and denial, so that you could be once again governed and profited from by a parasitic political and financial class intent on reversing a thousand years of eugenics that made possible the european miracle just it had the greek and roman miracles.

  • “do You Condone…?” Stupid Question of The Day (really)

    May 6, 2020, 11:03 AM

    —“Do you condone the IRA, Mao, Etc?”—

    What a stupid question. Really. “Do you condone prosecution of criminals” “Do you condone warfare” “Do you condone market economies” “Do you condone evolutionary necessity” “Do you condone gravity.” What is the market demand for morality(reciprocity) versus immorality (irreciprocity)? What is market demand for peace versus war? What is the limit of the utility of morality? Condone” = approve of, sanction, fail to suppress, fail to resist, fail to act to prevent some display word or deed – especially with reluctance under the presumption of an act of irreciprocity, where amoral, ethical and moral consist of non imposition of costs upon the demonstrated intersets of others with whom one or the group values cooperation within the limits of provoking retaliation. Implication(irreciprocal, harm) = criminal (direct physical), unethical (direct informational), moral (anonymous indirect informational or physical for personal gain or to prevent personal loss), evil (direct or indirect, informational or physical, loss regardless of personal gain or loss). Implication(irreciprocal, population) = scope of cooperation( inter-familial, interpersonal, inter-social, inter-political, universal). There is no morality in war. There is a demand for avoidance of harm in war. There is a market demand for harm in war. The market supplies what is necessary to prevent war, or to conduct war. This is why we are at war 2/3 of the time in human history. War for survival and persistence is the natural state of all creatures – we create political systems to limit war wether criminal, conspiratorial, political, or inter-political. Western man domesticated war largely by the Westphalian peace. We thought we could force the world into adopting the Westphalian peace. Communists ended the Westphalian peace but we nearly restored it because of our asymmetric power. Islamists copied the communists and ended the Westphalian peace. But we are unable due to dependence upon oil to resist their advancement once again after less than a century of suppressing their warfare against all civilization. So that is why we are in 4th Generation Warfare. Its why we lost in the middle east. Its’ why we are losing against china. Because we have domesticated warfare but by failing to complete the colonial program because of our world wars, we have failed to contain warfare to the Westphalian peace, and instead are reverting to natural warfare: a war of all against all where the state has lost control of actors who can create wars. The IRA demonstrated why it was possible at small scale. Mao how it was possible at large scale. The bolsheviks how it was possible from within. The communists how it was possible from within. Now the islamists are imitating the communists and undermining from within. And you wonder why I bother talking to people like you? Because I don’t blame you for intentionally being lied to and made ignorant sot that you were suckers for warfare-from within by marxism-postmodernism-feminism-hbd-denialism that unified pseudoscience, sophistry, and denial to replace christian supernaturalism, sophistry, and denial, so that you could be once again governed and profited from by a parasitic political and financial class intent on reversing a thousand years of eugenics that made possible the european miracle just it had the greek and roman miracles.

  • As Deluded as Marx but With Some Economic Literacy Thrown in The Mix to Dazzle and Confuse People.

    Oct 5, 2019, 11:04 AM By: Daniel Jordan via Michael Hayes I think it’s difficult for some people to get their brain out of a certain loop. Once someone destroys the illusion that the wealthy are not by necessity rich due to exploitation of the poor because the pie isn’t fixed (only the past is a fixed pie). The next illusion that gets propped up is created by applying this logic to other avenues of life. The idea that mass migration cannot possibly effect you because again the ‘pie isn’t fixed’ or that it simply should not effect you if not for bad policies (excessive welfare state brought onto you by force of the government) and so the next illusion that is propped up in tandem with the non fixed pie view of immigration is the NAP(non aggression principal). And this farcical idea of speculative harm being out of the question for use of force. Now we see the axiom that lays at the root of the ex socialist, neo-liberal. The most important commodity in the commons is trust. Trust that for various biological/cultural reasons can be eroded. NAP can collapse on its own merits if we even allow one iota of punishment for the most heinous of crimes such as murder. It’s not an axiom/ethic congruent with our nature to simply let evil walk free in the name of NAP. Consider the fact that the whole reason you lock someone up for murder is based on speculative future harm. Take the idea of air pollution or water pollution. The latter can generally be solved efficiently through property rights and give people all the protection we need. The former requires targeted regulation due to the nature of the problems and that it’s not really possible to have someone own the air (other than perhaps air traffic rights). Both of these things however have to be backed up by the courts (force, aggression if you will) and both require proactive (speculative) measures. Libertarians generally get economic issues, but they do not have a consistent view of the use of force. I suppose they are perfectly consistent if they are genuine ancaps, but really very few of them are, and that kind of Rothbardian view of humanity is pure fantasy, just as deluded as Marx but with some economic literacy thrown in the mix to dazzle and confuse people.

  • As Deluded as Marx but With Some Economic Literacy Thrown in The Mix to Dazzle and Confuse People.

    Oct 5, 2019, 11:04 AM By: Daniel Jordan via Michael Hayes I think it’s difficult for some people to get their brain out of a certain loop. Once someone destroys the illusion that the wealthy are not by necessity rich due to exploitation of the poor because the pie isn’t fixed (only the past is a fixed pie). The next illusion that gets propped up is created by applying this logic to other avenues of life. The idea that mass migration cannot possibly effect you because again the ‘pie isn’t fixed’ or that it simply should not effect you if not for bad policies (excessive welfare state brought onto you by force of the government) and so the next illusion that is propped up in tandem with the non fixed pie view of immigration is the NAP(non aggression principal). And this farcical idea of speculative harm being out of the question for use of force. Now we see the axiom that lays at the root of the ex socialist, neo-liberal. The most important commodity in the commons is trust. Trust that for various biological/cultural reasons can be eroded. NAP can collapse on its own merits if we even allow one iota of punishment for the most heinous of crimes such as murder. It’s not an axiom/ethic congruent with our nature to simply let evil walk free in the name of NAP. Consider the fact that the whole reason you lock someone up for murder is based on speculative future harm. Take the idea of air pollution or water pollution. The latter can generally be solved efficiently through property rights and give people all the protection we need. The former requires targeted regulation due to the nature of the problems and that it’s not really possible to have someone own the air (other than perhaps air traffic rights). Both of these things however have to be backed up by the courts (force, aggression if you will) and both require proactive (speculative) measures. Libertarians generally get economic issues, but they do not have a consistent view of the use of force. I suppose they are perfectly consistent if they are genuine ancaps, but really very few of them are, and that kind of Rothbardian view of humanity is pure fantasy, just as deluded as Marx but with some economic literacy thrown in the mix to dazzle and confuse people.