Form: Question

  • is there any way of keeping propertarian discourse limited to the language of la

    is there any way of keeping propertarian discourse limited to the language of law and entirely divorced from philosophy theology and morality, or will it degenerate into ‘bad old habits’?

    hmmm……..


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-19 19:10:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: “Curt, are you a white nationalist?” Well, 1) I’m a non-individualist,

    QUESTION: “Curt, are you a white nationalist?”

    Well,

    1) I’m a non-individualist, non corporatist, non-statist, non-universalist. Meaning that i’m against temporal(short term) asset holders without territorial, monumental, institutional, cultural, and kinship interest.

    And

    2) I’m a family-ist, tribalist, monarchist, nationalist, civilization-ist.

    Meaning that i’m in favor of inter-temporal(long term term) asset holders with territorial, monumental, institutional, cultural, and kinship interest.

    And moreover:

    3) I’m in favor of homogeneity in order to limit transaction costs, increase the utility of normative signals, increase the trust in the economy, and increase redistribution interests.

    And

    4) I object to moving people to capital even WITHIN polities, rather than moving capital to people. And moreover, I object to moving people between polities unless they are highly skilled or highly educated, and they do not come with families. object to ALL middle, working, and lower class migration. because these people are more dependent upon similar ideas than are those at the top of the socio economic pyramid – who are almost independent of demands on others of the same culture to function. (this subject needs a lot of detail and i don’t feel like writing it right now, but basically normative, cultural, and genetic costs are high.

    And

    5) the evidence is that a large number of small states are best able to domesticate and adapt, and improve their people. And if we have many small states then we can have varieties of states.

    And

    6) the natural consequence of rule of natural law will produce these outcomes.

    Now, would I prefer a state overwhelmingly populated by my kin. Of course I would. I grew up that way and I have tried the variety of options and I like living among my tribe. And I prefer to do so without competition from other tribes.

    Do I want to be able to visit other tribes? Absolutely. Do I want to live among them? Not particularly.

    But what I want doesn’t mater. What matters is that we have the ability to choose to live in small homogenous in relative equalitarian polities, or in large heterogeneous relative castes as we choose.

    Let a thousand nations bloom.

    POSTS

    What Do You Consider Yourself?

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/10/04/what-do-you-consider-yourself/

    I’m In This Fight For Humanity

    https://propertarianism.com/2015/07/06/im-in-this-fight-for-all-of-humanity/

    The Old Right vs The New Right

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/09/17/the-old-right-vs-the-new-right/


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 20:56:00 UTC

  • What kinds of job opportunities are available for people with a PhD in political

    What kinds of job opportunities are available for people with a PhD in political economy? https://www.quora.com/What-kinds-of-job-opportunities-are-available-for-people-with-a-PhD-in-political-economy/answer/Curt-Doolittle?share=8d045a51


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 19:38:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/821803994947448833

  • Francisco Antonio: –“QUESTION: How does mysticism compare with pseudo-science?”

    Francisco Antonio: –“QUESTION: How does mysticism compare with pseudo-science?”–

    Example

    1) Mysticism: Supernatural existence,lack of deducibility from testable experience, lack of correspondence, lack of evidence, with anthropomorphic intention, cognitive bias to justify, argument corresponds to previous types of human error. (ex: intentional design) ASSERTION: arbitrary introduction of INTENT

    2) Supernatural existence, lack of deducibility from testable experience, lack of correspondence, lack of evidence, without anthropomorphic intention, cognitive bias to justify, argument corresponds to previous types of human error. (ex: multiple worlds) ASSERTION: arbitrary introduction of EXISTENCE.

    3) the hard one is pseudorationalism, but it basically means artificial insertion of information between the premise and the conclusion. Some people mentioned Kant and Hegel today (kant’s dependence upon the excluded middle is an example).


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 18:48:00 UTC

  • QUESTION: What’s the difference between “no shoes no shirt, no service” in a pri

    QUESTION: What’s the difference between “no shoes no shirt, no service” in a private space vs in a public space?

    (hints: 1-contractual commons. 2-via negativa. 3-trades)


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 18:26:00 UTC

  • WHAT COULD I DEBATE CHRIS ABOUT? Something meaningful? I mean, I don’t follow hi

    WHAT COULD I DEBATE CHRIS ABOUT?

    Something meaningful? I mean, I don’t follow him. He’s a populist. But I get the impression that I don’t really disagree with him about much (at the level he discourses).

    I suspect he’s still in the ‘rothbardian’ (libertine) ideology, rather than classical liberal (libertarian) ideology, and certainly not in my camp (sovereignty), and I suspect not fascism(tribal authoritarianism).

    I suspect he’s still practicing cosmopolitanism(universalism) rather than nationalism(particularism).

    I suspect he’s still a ‘NAP’-er.

    He seems reasonably red-pilled (masculinity). I mean, that’s the only clear value I can deduce from the content of his reading list.

    He seems pretty anti-state, rather than anti-discretion or pro rule of law.

    He seems pretty pro-violence (which is what I care about).

    What could I debate him about?

    What would you like me to ‘correct’ him about?

    Thanks

    Curt


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 13:49:00 UTC

  • WHITE / RED RUSSIANS ~= ENGLISH ROSES Who were the “White Russians”? —“The Whi

    WHITE / RED RUSSIANS ~= ENGLISH ROSES

    Who were the “White Russians”?

    —“The White movement (Russian: Бѣлое движенiе/Белое движение, tr. Beloye dvizheniye; IPA: [ˈbʲɛləɪ dvʲɪˈʐenʲɪɪ]) and its military arm the White Army (Бѣлая Армiя/Белая Армия, Belaya Armiya), also known as the White Guard (Бѣлая Гвардiя/Белая Гвардия, Belaya Gvardiya) or the Whites (Белые and белогвардейцы, “White Guardsmen”), was a loose confederation of Anti-Communist forces that fought the Bolsheviks (большевики, “Majority”), also known as the Reds, in the Russian Civil War (1917–1922/3) and, to a lesser extent, continued operating as militarized associations both outside and within Russian borders until roughly the Second World War.

    Remnants and continuations of the movement, some of which only had narrow support, endured within the wider White émigré community until after the fall of Communism.”—


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 13:22:00 UTC

  • THIS AS LEGIT? If it’s true I’m making cupcakes and celebrating. Thieves. Guess

    http://worldpoliticus.com/2017/01/16/hillary-clinton-decided-fire-employees-clinton-foundation-done/CONFIRM THIS AS LEGIT?

    If it’s true I’m making cupcakes and celebrating. Thieves.

    Guess i’ll never get my 2m back from them now… lol


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-18 03:22:00 UTC

  • ANGLOS TRIED TO CREATE THE LAW OF INFORMATION?

    https://propertarianism.com/2016/02/02/truth-natural-law-physical-law/HAVE ANGLOS TRIED TO CREATE THE LAW OF INFORMATION?


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-17 10:46:00 UTC

  • WHICH STATEMENT DO YOU IDENTIFY MOST WITH? 1) “I agree not to subjugate you, pre

    WHICH STATEMENT DO YOU IDENTIFY MOST WITH?

    1) “I agree not to subjugate you, prey upon you, kill you, if our cooperation is more beneficial than your defeat.”

    (male-aristocracy-conservative: “Father”)

    2) “I agree to cooperate and invest in common goods as long as it’s not against the interests of me, my family, kin, and people. Otherwise I choose not to cooperate, and i am happy to defend myself, my family, my kin, and my people.”

    (male-burgher-libertarian : “Brother”)

    3) “I agree to cooperate with the group as long as I am not left behind and obtain a share of production, but I will inhibit cooperation if I am left behind or denied a share of production.”

    (female – socialist: “Mother-Daughter”)

    4) “I want to be left alone, but allowed to participate in the commercial market.”

    (male – Libertine – anarchist )


    Source date (UTC): 2017-01-15 12:04:00 UTC