(FB 1552690128 Timestamp) The one child policy is not a time bomb. It’s preparation for automation and the lack of need for redistribution. The chinese and japanese methods are the ones to copy. Ethnocentrism closed borders, automation. The singapore method for rule and social insurance. The rest of the world that does otherwise will starve. There is no market value that they can provide compared to machines. We just bred billions of people who cannot survive the coming corrections.
Form: Mini Essay
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552752838 Timestamp) THE DEVIL IN THE WORD ‘IS’ AND PROPERTARIANISM One ‘is’ a propertarian the way one is a doctor, lawyer, engineer or mathematician. It’s a discipline of law. That’s it. Where “is = A PRACTITIONER OF A DISCIPLINE” One ‘is’ an advocate for a social order or other. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR A CLASS PREFERENCE” One ‘is’ a member of one religious habituation or other. Where ‘is = A SET OF INDOCTRINATED COGNITIVE BIASES” Propertarianism is rule of law: Nomocracy (NO-MO’-crah-see) Where “is = IDENTITY (equal to).” Propertarianism is a formal rule of law that eliminates disinformation in the commons, and particularly the means of abrahamic deception we call baiting, pilpul and critique. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR EXPANSION OF INVOLUNTARY WARRANTY TO SPEECH” Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for Nomocracy, Militia, Monarchy, Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, and Shared Returns (dividends) on the Realm (state profits) for western peoples in particular, but for all peoples capable of it. Where “is = An ADVOCATE for ARISTOCRACY” Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for policies that produce what we would call national socialism in the original french german and italian ambitions, but by rule of law and market means unlimited by previous failures to understand money and economics as merely information and influence. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR NATIONAL SOCIALIST POLICIES IN THE FACE OF ONGOING AUTOMATION”
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552749174 Timestamp) LESSONS FROM GENGHIS KHAN The first question of outgroup politics: —“If I and mine CAN exterminate you, then why should I and mine NOT exterminate you? At present since you are a threat, it is rational to exterminate you. Therefore we need a reason NOT to exterminate you. What is that reason”— Emissary of Genghis Khan. THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY?
- Philosophy (choice) why not commit suicide?
- Ethics (choice) why not commit murder?
- Politics (choice) why not commit genocide?
Without first answering these questions, you cannot answer all questions upon which those answers depend. Rather than engage in a conversation under pretext, simply ask the question “Why do I not at least TRY for murder or genocide if this means more for me and mine?” Cooperation is only valuable until it is not. Tolerance is only valuable until it is not. Otherwise, genocide, and seizure of assets are superior options. Ergo, this is the reason to ‘cooperate’ reciprocally. ALWAYS START ANY DEBATE BY ASKING “WHY NOT END YOU FOR FUN AND PROFIT?”
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552752838 Timestamp) THE DEVIL IN THE WORD ‘IS’ AND PROPERTARIANISM One ‘is’ a propertarian the way one is a doctor, lawyer, engineer or mathematician. It’s a discipline of law. That’s it. Where “is = A PRACTITIONER OF A DISCIPLINE” One ‘is’ an advocate for a social order or other. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR A CLASS PREFERENCE” One ‘is’ a member of one religious habituation or other. Where ‘is = A SET OF INDOCTRINATED COGNITIVE BIASES” Propertarianism is rule of law: Nomocracy (NO-MO’-crah-see) Where “is = IDENTITY (equal to).” Propertarianism is a formal rule of law that eliminates disinformation in the commons, and particularly the means of abrahamic deception we call baiting, pilpul and critique. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR EXPANSION OF INVOLUNTARY WARRANTY TO SPEECH” Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for Nomocracy, Militia, Monarchy, Ethnocentrism, Nationalism, and Shared Returns (dividends) on the Realm (state profits) for western peoples in particular, but for all peoples capable of it. Where “is = An ADVOCATE for ARISTOCRACY” Curt Doolittle ‘is’ an advocate for policies that produce what we would call national socialism in the original french german and italian ambitions, but by rule of law and market means unlimited by previous failures to understand money and economics as merely information and influence. Where “is = AN ADVOCATE FOR NATIONAL SOCIALIST POLICIES IN THE FACE OF ONGOING AUTOMATION”
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1552749174 Timestamp) LESSONS FROM GENGHIS KHAN The first question of outgroup politics: —“If I and mine CAN exterminate you, then why should I and mine NOT exterminate you? At present since you are a threat, it is rational to exterminate you. Therefore we need a reason NOT to exterminate you. What is that reason”— Emissary of Genghis Khan. THE FIRST QUESTIONS OF PHILOSOPHY?
- Philosophy (choice) why not commit suicide?
- Ethics (choice) why not commit murder?
- Politics (choice) why not commit genocide?
Without first answering these questions, you cannot answer all questions upon which those answers depend. Rather than engage in a conversation under pretext, simply ask the question “Why do I not at least TRY for murder or genocide if this means more for me and mine?” Cooperation is only valuable until it is not. Tolerance is only valuable until it is not. Otherwise, genocide, and seizure of assets are superior options. Ergo, this is the reason to ‘cooperate’ reciprocally. ALWAYS START ANY DEBATE BY ASKING “WHY NOT END YOU FOR FUN AND PROFIT?”
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553009664 Timestamp) INSIGHT by Brandon Hayes —“Curt, I am in full agreement with your statement: (quote) “..there are no premises we can claim are true only meaningful, for the purpose of commercial, financial economic, legal, and military discourse.” Then on the basis of positivist epistemology, which you acknowledge has no access to ontological truth, you proceed to contradict yourself by making a whole set of ontological truth claims such as “the universe IS hostile” and “humans are unimportant.” These are your subjective philosophical value judgements. They are not inescapable deductions implied in the premises of science. Thus your reply is a performative simply confirming and illustrating the validity of everything I wrote.”—Prem Prayojan I appreciate your insights in these matters; however, I think you have taken Ps position and pushed it a step further than needed (than possible; than we do). –“The universe IS hostile” and “humans are unimportant.”– Saying these things are true isn’t to posit them as ultimate truth claims [these are half truths] and all truth (half or not) must be coped with. [Curt correct me if I’m off base] –CURTD– You’re correct in principle, in that 1) Truth Proper (Ideal Truth), is unattainable for other than the reductio and therefore irrelevant. 2) that the best we can do is achieve truthfulness (testimonial truth), and that no matter where we are in a spectrum of achieving sufficient completeness that we might SATISFY the DEMAND for INFALLIBILITY (what we mean when we say something ‘is true’), we must cope with the supply of infallibility (truth) that we have before us. Given TAUTOLOGICAL TRUTH: That testimony you give when you promising the equality of two statements using different terms: A circular definition, a statement of equality or a statement of identity. ANALYTIC TRUTH: The testimony you give promising the internal consistency of one or more statements used in the construction of a proof in an axiomatic(declarative) system. (a Logical Truth). IDEAL TRUTH: That testimony (description) you would give, if your knowledge (information) was complete, your language was sufficient, stated without error, cleansed of bias, and absent deceit, within the scope of precision limited to the context of the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possessed of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. (Ideal Truth = Perfect Parsimony.) TRUTHFULNESS: that testimony (description) you give if your knowledge (information) is incomplete, your language is insufficient, you have performed due diligence in the elimination of error, imaginary content, wishful thinking, bias, and deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and which you warranty to be so; and the promise that another possessed of the knowledge, performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. HONESTY: that testimony (description) you give with full knowledge that knowledge is incomplete, your language is insufficient, but you have not performed due diligence in the elimination of error and bias, but which you warranty is free of deceit; within the scope of precision limited to the question you wish to answer; and the promise that another possess of the same knowledge (information), performing the same due diligence, having the same experiences, would provide the same testimony. INTUITION: (sentimental expression) â an uncritical, uncriticized, response to information that expresses a measure of existing biases (priors).
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553030724 Timestamp) HOW IT’S DONE WITH ELEGANCE by Ferdinand Pizarro The satisfaction of preferences tend toward equilibrium in that the utility produced by the marginal satisfaction of preferences is never exceeded by the marginal cost of satisfying the preference. Markets for goods & services function to ensure equilibrium in private-consumption of consumer-goods & by extension allocative efficiency in capital markets through the production of price signalsâvia positva satisfaction of preference; whereas the market for rule & commons ensures equilibrium by incrementally suppressing the satisfaction of preference at the expense of peers & commonsÂâvia negativa elimination of externality. Ergo, the law performs as a signaling function for the cost of preference to society (commons), allowing for the optimal satisfaction of preference under the constraint of strict-reciprocity. — CURTD — Curt Doolittle just going to walk thru this carefully because you usually have something very smart to say…. —“The satisfaction of preferences tend toward equilibrium in that the utility produced by the marginal satisfaction of preferences is never exceeded by the marginal cost of satisfying the preference.”— Perfect. —Markets for goods & services function to ensure equilibrium in private-consumption of consumer-goods & by extension allocative efficiency in capital markets through the production of price signalsâvia positva satisfaction of preference; whereas the market for rule & commons ensures equilibrium by incrementally suppressing the satisfaction of preference at the expense of peers & commonsÂâvia negativa elimination of externality. “— That’s perfect. I use “goods, services, and information” now rather than just “goods and services”. —“Ergo, the law performs as a signaling function for the cost of preference to society (commons), allowing for the optimal satisfaction of preference under the constraint of strict-reciprocity.”— Perfect.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553030724 Timestamp) HOW IT’S DONE WITH ELEGANCE by Ferdinand Pizarro The satisfaction of preferences tend toward equilibrium in that the utility produced by the marginal satisfaction of preferences is never exceeded by the marginal cost of satisfying the preference. Markets for goods & services function to ensure equilibrium in private-consumption of consumer-goods & by extension allocative efficiency in capital markets through the production of price signalsâvia positva satisfaction of preference; whereas the market for rule & commons ensures equilibrium by incrementally suppressing the satisfaction of preference at the expense of peers & commonsÂâvia negativa elimination of externality. Ergo, the law performs as a signaling function for the cost of preference to society (commons), allowing for the optimal satisfaction of preference under the constraint of strict-reciprocity. — CURTD — Curt Doolittle just going to walk thru this carefully because you usually have something very smart to say…. —“The satisfaction of preferences tend toward equilibrium in that the utility produced by the marginal satisfaction of preferences is never exceeded by the marginal cost of satisfying the preference.”— Perfect. —Markets for goods & services function to ensure equilibrium in private-consumption of consumer-goods & by extension allocative efficiency in capital markets through the production of price signalsâvia positva satisfaction of preference; whereas the market for rule & commons ensures equilibrium by incrementally suppressing the satisfaction of preference at the expense of peers & commonsÂâvia negativa elimination of externality. “— That’s perfect. I use “goods, services, and information” now rather than just “goods and services”. —“Ergo, the law performs as a signaling function for the cost of preference to society (commons), allowing for the optimal satisfaction of preference under the constraint of strict-reciprocity.”— Perfect.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553102055 Timestamp) THE PRACTICAL DAILY BENEFITS OF PROPERTARIANISM –“Can you explain the value of P for others’ benefit?”– by Moritz Bierling Hehe, I’ve developed much more “oomph” in negotiations of all kind, be they romantic, professional, or otherwise With the aid of a comprehensive framework for assessing what people desire, protect, and defend (Property-in-Toto and Acquisitionism), I can easily understand where they overextend their hand (bluff) or fail to ask for everything they could get within the limits of reciprocity. I can point out benefits accruing to them from my part of the relationship they don’t account for. But perhaps most importantly of all, I can accurately assess what value my skills (and network, ideas, awarenesses) bring to the table, which translates into a confident and relaxed attitudeââone that the other party can feel and readily submits to, because they instinctively sense that “I know my shit” and “they can’t fuck with me”. Oh, and another added benefit, perhaps even greater than the above, lies in me not deceiving myself and getting blindsided by an angle I didn’t consider.
-
Curt Doolittle updated his status.
(FB 1553099472 Timestamp) THE SUPERPOWER If Philosophy helped you in life and business, The Natural Law will be a superpower by comparison. Yes, its work. But it’s not harder than learning geometry or basic programming as far as I can tell. And other than it’s falsificationary, equilibrating, and reciprocal, rather than ‘justifiationary’ it’s a bit more intuitive. But man. Learning how to convert from justification to falsification, equilibration, and reciprocity is … well, it’s gotta be turned into a habit. And a habit requires repetition. And that means ‘lots of case studies’. Ie: writing lots of law.