Curt Doolittle

Form: Mini Essay

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. YOU WILL EVENTUALLY DISAGREE WITH ME I will i

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    YOU WILL EVENTUALLY DISAGREE WITH ME

    I will inevitably make you disagree with me for the simple reason that nearly all of us are invested in some excuse or other that violates natural law.

    You will not take my advice and accept that the problem is the man in the mirror, but instead, you will blame me or my work or my reasoning, or my incentives, just like you blame others for the status quo, rather than the man in the mirror.

    It is extremely difficult to possess sufficient agency such that we ritualize intellectual honesty. While almost all of us are capable of it, few of us train for it, and fewer of us develop it in the course of life, and even fewer of us are born with the disposition.

    Truth knows no exception.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 16:03:34 UTC

  • YOU WILL EVENTUALLY DISAGREE WITH ME I will inevitably make you disagree with me

    YOU WILL EVENTUALLY DISAGREE WITH ME

    I will inevitably make you disagree with me for the simple reason that nearly all of us are invested in some excuse or other that violates natural law.

    You will not take my advice and accept that the problem is the man in the mirror, but instead, you will blame me or my work or my reasoning, or my incentives, just like you blame others for the status quo, rather than the man in the mirror.

    It is extremely difficult to possess sufficient agency such that we ritualize intellectual honesty. While almost all of us are capable of it, few of us train for it, and fewer of us develop it in the course of life, and even fewer of us are born with the disposition.

    Truth knows no exception.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-21 12:03:00 UTC

  • More on Non-Hetero Behavior in The Commons as A Matter of Law

    There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter. In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons. That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction. As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration. As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market. Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉

  • More on Non-Hetero Behavior in The Commons as A Matter of Law

    There are a number of reasons that I foster these debates on uncomfortable topics. One is to bait the opposition into a debate. Another is to educate via the audience’s reactions. Another is because I am uncertain of my position. 😉 (Never assume you are right. Just try as hard as you can to determine if you’re wrong.) So far I haven’t determined I”m wrong in this matter. In my opinion, the slippery slope exists only because the question was insufficiently settled in law. I know how to solve that problem: to settle it as we do other sexual matters other than mate finding, by prohibiting it from the commons. That still leaves me with the reality that as far as I know the individuals behavior is determined in utero or by trauma. Neither of which (at least in males) are discretionary (unlike body issues, which are co-morbid with other psychological problems.) There is some evidence that female sexuality is extremely plastic as are most female behaviors. So as far as I know the functional test is the body issue not attraction. As such if the display does not make it out of the bedroom, then I do not consider it a matter of law. Since assortative mating is necessary for survival, I consider hetero reproductive signaling as necessary in the commons, up until the point of demonstration. As I have said elsewhere, as a matter of law it is a solved question. As a matter of aesthetics it is a choice. As such it is of course as sensible to create polities that ban individuals based upon traits, just as it is to accept or celebrate individuals upon traits. But that is a preference, not a good or a truth. And should be solved by the market. Thanks as always, for your thoughts and participation. 😉

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. WHITE NATIONALISM IS RIDICULOUS. NATIONALISM

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    WHITE NATIONALISM IS RIDICULOUS. NATIONALISM ISN’T

    When say that you are a White Nationalist your not solving the problem: building a worldwide movement, exiting leftists (defectors) from the gene pool, and saving another 5000 years of costly eugenics. We know we’ve spent 3500 years or more on eugenic evolution by cultural design, and it’s possible much more than that by accident. There is no need for a monopoly and to dominate. It’s not helpful. So voluntary separation is all that is necessary. And race is an insufficient criteria.

    The only thing that matters is voluntary association and disassociation. The markets for polities will solve everything for us just as all markets solve all other issues for us.

    Why? We can afford to produce commons that suit the genetic interests of different groups. So rather than fight an impossible fight, lets just serve one another’s interests.

    Serve EVERYONE’s political interests.

    Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.

    ====== UPDATE ======
    Funny that some people understand propaganda and some don’t. I have this suspicion that what makes our people fragile, is that we have been performing truth to power for so many thousands of years that it’s in our genes, and that is why we are both susceptible to propaganda and bad at making it.

    WN is Bad Prop. Nationalism and commons preferred by each group is GOOD prop. Good prop makes allies. Bad prop creates resistance.

    The simple and direct route is the one that is predictable. Great generals maneuver: they let the opponent take the direct route and take the indirect route to defeat them.

    The psychological drive for directness is male aggression. This is why some people fight physically, others legally, others politically, and others informationally.

    WN is bad Prop. Universal Nationalism to foster group flourishing is Good Prop.

    Help everyone to help ourselves.

    The bigger ambition provides the shortest distance and duration.

    ===== UPDATE ====

    NATIONALISM
    – ethnocentrism is the optimum group political strategy.
    – markets the optimum economic strategy.
    – eugenics the optimum group competitive strategy.
    – neoteny the optimum genetic strategy.

    ===== UPDATE ====

    THE DEAD END RIGHT: WN
    W.N. is a dead end. Nationalism is not.
    National Socialism is a dead end. Redistribution is not.
    Religion is Dead End. Institutional models are not.
    Takeover is a dead end. Separatism is not.
    Demonstrations are a dead end. Direct action is not.
    Solving your problem is a dead end. Solving everyone’s is not.
    Ideology is a dead end. Economics Incentives Are Not.

    THE SOLUTIONS MOVEMENTS NEED
    All revolutions occur because of a convergence between:
    (a) the state’s inability to modify it’s behavior to serve the diverging interests of the public.
    (b) a common knowledge of an alternative condition (order) that would be preferable,
    (c) a surplus of males that are agitated by this condition,
    (d) an economic or political event that provides opportunity for collective action that can ‘spiral’ (increase in momentum).

    REALITIES OF MOVEMENTS
    The early adopters seek the fringe. The population seeks an Overton Window. As movements age, they upgrade members from the fringe to the Overton Window: Fringe personalities perform research for talented personalities that perform research for mainstream personalities.

    We have better followers this year than last.
    We had better followers last year than the year before.
    We had better followers the year before last, than the year before … and so on.

    I don’t want to associate with the fringe that hinders capture of the Overton Window. They are a dead end. All that matters is the people who will fight, resist, advocate, or not get in the way. And those people will be captured by economic and cultural incentives – not ideology.

    REVOLUTION
    A moral License.
    A set of Demands.
    A plan of Transition.
    A means of raising the cost of the status quo.

    Thanks.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 22:58:47 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. THE PROPER METHOD FOR THE SUPREME COURT’S DEC

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    THE PROPER METHOD FOR THE SUPREME COURT’S DECISIONS

    —” the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers mandates that judges anchor their analysis to the text as reasonably understood by the people of the time. If that leads to a violation of Reciprocity (Natural Law), then the proper avenue for redress is to amend the constitution so the text better and better codifies Reciprocity (Natural Law).”—

    I assume, and the minority of strict jurists assume that the founding documents consist of The Declaration, The Constitution, and The Bill of Rights. And if clarity of original intent is required then we resort to The Federalist Papers, or notes on the proceeds of the debate. Once the bill of rights was ratified, then the founding documents were complete.

    1 – The Declaration contains the appeal to Natural Law as justification for secession(independence).

    2 – The Bill of Rights codifies the natural law as they enumerated those rights at the time.

    3 – The Constitution describes the organization and processes of the government.

    I tend to tell people to read them in that order: Declaration, Bill of Rights, and Constitution: from the reason for the secession: violation of natural law, to the articulation of the specific defenses of it, to the institutions that protect it yet still allow for the production of commons.

    Unfortunately, first, reciprocity is not specifically stated as the first rule of natural law. Second, there is no requirement that the judiciary certify the constitutionality of legislation, and instead, all legislation ascends until falsified by the court. In other words, the market tests the legislation, and if conflicts arise the court corrects legislation.

    This approach continues the no-prior-restraint of the Anglo Saxon (Germanic) law versus the prior-restraint of continental (french and roman) law. And this is yet another example of ‘markets in everything’.

    Worse, without specifying Reciprocity, there is no means by which the initial rights can be limited, and therefore no means by which the court can limit the grant of rights rather than permissions and obligations.

    Worse, there are no means by which the court can return the legislation to the legislature and demand correction. Nor are there means by which the court can suggest corrections or amendments to rectify the deficiency, and return to the legislature.

    As such the court must, as the president must, choose ‘line item veto’ so to speak, or to veto the entire piece of legislation. So that is what the court does.

    And the court members use different criteria for determining the power of the legislature:
    1- Rule of Law (Substantive) in which the legislature and the people may only act in concert with natural law (reciprocity), or ;
    2-Rule by Law (Formalist) in which the legislature can do what it wants;
    3-Rule by Law (Majoritarian), in which the people can do whatever they want.

    In other words, there are always at least THREE parties to a matter before the court: Plaintiff, Defendant, and Legislature. And the court cannot demand remedy of the legislature. And that is the oversight.

    Curt Doolittle
    The Propertarian Institute

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 22:52:22 UTC

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status. IS LEFTISM A DISEASE? WE ARE SPECIATING (divi

    Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    IS LEFTISM A DISEASE? WE ARE SPECIATING
    (dividing into species)

    —“Curt do you think that leftism is simply a mental illness or is there an actual reason why people adopt such an unreasonable belief system?”—

    I think it’s a pre-cognitive genetic (evolutionary) strategy that some people have evolved just as conservatism is a genetic (evolutionary) strategy that others have evolved.

    And I think the difference is caused by the female reproductive strategy that favors women and the lower classes, and male reproductive strategy that favors males and the middle/upper classes.

    And this is confirmed pretty simply by the reproductive attractiveness of conservatives and liberals. Conservatives tend to be more reproductively desirable, and have greater agency. These are genetic markers.

    My view is that we WERE speciating regionally by race when we discovered metalworking.

    My view is that we are wealthy enough to speciate by need for commons – and that’s what we are in the process of doing.

    And that the mistake is to think that our interests are better served by the production of COMPROMISE commons versus SPECIALIZED COMMONS that suit our reproductive strategies.

    All peoples are better served by the production of SPECIALIZED COMMONS. And we can (finally) afford to produce them.

    And that is what we see across the world.

    WE NEED TO SPECIATE.

    WOLVES(conservatives) Packs, and SHEEP(liberals) Herd.

    Revolt, Separate, Prosper, Speciate.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-07-20 22:13:28 UTC

  • Libertarianism vs Sovereigntarianism

    (pastoralism/diasporia/parasitism vs territorialism/production) The difference between my anglo sovereigntarianism and ashkenazi libertarianism(libertinism) is that the militia and the judiciary rule under the natural law of reciprocity, property in toto, universal standing, and universal application – with a monarchy as a judge of last resort (headman). And that one constructs the market for the construction of commons (government) in whatever way is necessary for competitive persistence(survival, and flourishing) of the polity (militia). This means monarchy, republic, direct democracy, as conditions (war, growth, windfalls) warrant. This organization both adapts to all circumstances and suppresses all parasitism of all forms – providing competitive survivability; whereas ashkenazi libertarianism (libertinism) does not suppress parasitism. It licenses it. And ensures the competitive death or conquest of the polity. There is a reason the ashkenazi civilization is diasporic and dependent: inability to produce high trust territorial commons due to the high costs of opportunities, costs, duty and sacrifice required.

  • Libertarianism vs Sovereigntarianism

    (pastoralism/diasporia/parasitism vs territorialism/production) The difference between my anglo sovereigntarianism and ashkenazi libertarianism(libertinism) is that the militia and the judiciary rule under the natural law of reciprocity, property in toto, universal standing, and universal application – with a monarchy as a judge of last resort (headman). And that one constructs the market for the construction of commons (government) in whatever way is necessary for competitive persistence(survival, and flourishing) of the polity (militia). This means monarchy, republic, direct democracy, as conditions (war, growth, windfalls) warrant. This organization both adapts to all circumstances and suppresses all parasitism of all forms – providing competitive survivability; whereas ashkenazi libertarianism (libertinism) does not suppress parasitism. It licenses it. And ensures the competitive death or conquest of the polity. There is a reason the ashkenazi civilization is diasporic and dependent: inability to produce high trust territorial commons due to the high costs of opportunities, costs, duty and sacrifice required.

  • The False Dichotomy of Socialism vs Capitalism

    What kind of government? Rule of Law, or Rule by Discretion? It’s an easy question. Natural Law Capitalism (markets in everything, limited by externality) must emerge under rule of law since no other option is available. The only externality is black markets (crime) to profit by imposition of costs by externalities. All other forms of circumventing rule of law by rule of discretion will simply breed special interests, monopolies, rents, and corruption – as well as black markets One of the great intellectual scams of the 19th and 20th centuries is to sell the replacement of rule of law, with arbitrary rule – by selling capitalism (unlimited free trade capitalism that tolerates externalities), versus socialism (discretionary rule socialism that manufactures externalities in volume). There is no alternative to a mixed economy. The alternative is between rule of law mixed economy (dividends to shareholder-citizens), and arbitrary rule mixed economy (dividends to the political class and their enablers).