Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551984037 Timestamp) MOST CONTROVERSIAL ISSUE? —“Curt Doolittle: What’s the most controversial social issue that is the most difficult to solve for propertarianism?”—Philip Clark Religion without exception. Abortion because it is so passionate and it is not a question of law but of choice on the part of the community. hence the necessity of small custom communities. I’ll say this:

    1. Abrahamic religion is a rather obvious bad – but it appears we are stuck with it.

    2. Abortion is very difficult because (a) it is never clear that we aren’t just trying to suppress sexuality (which is fine) but address the underling question not abortion, (b) whether it’s any different or worse than ‘exposure’ by which women have killed more lives than all wars in history combined. (c) whether it’s simply a better choice than putting children into terrible circumstances and hostile environments. (d) whether it’s tragic for many young couples who are not sufficiently adult and if there is any alternative, (e) that there shouldn’t be some additional penalty for failing to use protection. My opinion is keep it legal but make couples pay dearly for it over the long term. But it’s only an opinion.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551981350 Timestamp) by Philip Clark Curt how would propertianism handle complex things in society like 1. Alcohol, Drugs 2. Pornography 3. Abortion 4. Death penalty Other controversial stuff that have some negative side effects to society that’s legal to some degree in the US right now. I know this is diving deep into the weeds and there’s way bigger problems to solve before hand. This would be an interesting video for John Mark to do a video. —Answer— I’ve answered all of these before but lets condense them here:

    1. ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
      GIVEN
      a) Family and Commons (conservatism/capitalization) take priority over individual satisfaction (hedonism/consumption) – this is the inverse of ‘individualism’ and returns us to ‘familialism’ – intergenerational production instead of temporal consumption.
    2. PORNOGRAPHY
      There is no right to anything in public other than quietly walking down a public way or ‘necessary way’ (hedgerow) staring at your feet and keeping your mouths shut.

    b) Alcohol and drugs are no one’s business unless externalized into the commons. c) Unfortunately they are frequently externalized into the commons. Therefore the question of alcohol and drugs are empirical (outputs) not blanket (inputs). And therefore a local community decision – not a universally decidable question. But that does not mean that we cannot define a point of demarcation. We can: d) Technically speaking you are no longer human (rational) when not in control, unable to perform due diligence, exposing others to hazard, and therefore have no rights in the commons, because you cannot engage in reciprocity. Therefore you lose your sovereignty because you no longer can demonstrate it. I really don’t know why you have the right to be drunk or stoned in public, and I know for certain you can’t claim the right to disconnect (heroin) or trip (hallucinate) in public. What you do on a boat, in the wilderness, or in your home, is up to you. Unfortunately this takes most of the joy out of recreational drugs. That said, if no one can tell, no one can tell. e) it is very hard to i) claim recreational use is a bad, ii) claim therapeutic use is a bad, iii) claim self medication in modernity is a bad, UNLESS iv) instead of self medication we provide both conditions non-hostile to mindfulness and provide mindfulness training (Stoicism etc) to the same degree that devotion does (continuous repetition and enforcement), and insurance (medical care, charity) to one another in case we fail and self medication is the only coince. (IMO, suicide should be an option, since all must have the right of exit.) f) The line of demarcation is crossed at (v) externalization of addiction. There can be no ‘right to addiction’. Empirically speaking, we should provide death sentences for addicts, or those engage in crime to finance addiction, or those who sell drugs to those who are addicts or engage in grim to finance addiction. (“The Duerte Rule”). We are currently running an experiment in Pornography. This experiment appears to a) suppress sexual frustration due to easy masturbation, b) dramatically reduce male sex drive and competitiveness (producing docility), c) produce sexual dysfunction in males, c) reduce sex crime, d) but feed extreme deviants (pedophiles, etc) – since novelty is part of the excitement that generates sexual stimulation we must run to extremes. There is no evidence that the human body (nudity) is a bad thing in public – probably just the opposite. There is evidence that infidelity may follow the degree of nudity in public (I can’t be sure of this). There is some evidence that limiting the range of pornography (which the industry does fairly well) might be of a benefit. There is some evidence that studio quality ‘romantic porn’ is not only not bad but instructive. There is plenty of evidence men are losing the skills (patience) taught to my generation during the 70’s. Ergo, if it’s not in public, and meets propertarian criteria, it is a matter of choice. It it externalizes into the public then it’s a violation. This is an empirical statement, and nothing else is decidable. I would recommend a park-like public since online access in private is universally available.

    1. ABORTION
      Search my site for my works on abortion. Net is that it’s undecidable. And therefore a matter of local choice.

    2. DEATH PENALTY
      The experiment with eliminating the death penalty has been a failure – a catastrophic one, and in our constitution I have corrected this to some degree and given license to restore even lynching.

    So the only difficult question here is drugs. The rest are pretty simple.

  • Curt Doolittle shared a link.

    (FB 1552042087 Timestamp) AGAIN. PERFECT!!!

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552041503 Timestamp) SOMEONE COMPLAINED ABOUT ME ELSEWHERE …. (I thought I was promoting their ideas….) From the Rules….

    1. No Fed posting. It’s fine to want revolutionary change, but we don’t need to bring unwanted attention to yourself and the group. If you want to talk about that, for the love of God(s) don’t do it on Facebook, they can see everything you do.
    2. Keep it civil. Do you think of yourself as pillar standing above the ruins of modernity? Prove it by acting like a higher man, and not some uppity snivelling modern. This is a place for building unity and community.
    3. Confidentiality, no unauthorized screenshots. That’s an immediate ban.
    4. I don’t want to do the Christian v Pagan thing here. I’ve got my opinions of Christianity, and I know some of you have your opinions on Paganism. It’s a pointless debate that will do nothing, but sowing division. I’ll say it again, this is a place for building unity and community.

    … Yep, that’s me. … Yep, that’s me. … Yep, that’s me. … Yep, that’s me. My goal with this group is to build fellowship, and that many of us will come to eventually see ourselves as brothers in arms. … I think maybe I should just leave the group. 😉 … I mean, they could have just ASKED me. … So….. I left the group. No axe to grind. We all fight the good fight as best we know how.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1551981350 Timestamp) by Philip Clark Curt how would propertianism handle complex things in society like 1. Alcohol, Drugs 2. Pornography 3. Abortion 4. Death penalty Other controversial stuff that have some negative side effects to society that’s legal to some degree in the US right now. I know this is diving deep into the weeds and there’s way bigger problems to solve before hand. This would be an interesting video for John Mark to do a video. —Answer— I’ve answered all of these before but lets condense them here:

    1. ALCOHOL AND DRUGS
      GIVEN
      a) Family and Commons (conservatism/capitalization) take priority over individual satisfaction (hedonism/consumption) – this is the inverse of ‘individualism’ and returns us to ‘familialism’ – intergenerational production instead of temporal consumption.
    2. PORNOGRAPHY
      There is no right to anything in public other than quietly walking down a public way or ‘necessary way’ (hedgerow) staring at your feet and keeping your mouths shut.

    b) Alcohol and drugs are no one’s business unless externalized into the commons. c) Unfortunately they are frequently externalized into the commons. Therefore the question of alcohol and drugs are empirical (outputs) not blanket (inputs). And therefore a local community decision – not a universally decidable question. But that does not mean that we cannot define a point of demarcation. We can: d) Technically speaking you are no longer human (rational) when not in control, unable to perform due diligence, exposing others to hazard, and therefore have no rights in the commons, because you cannot engage in reciprocity. Therefore you lose your sovereignty because you no longer can demonstrate it. I really don’t know why you have the right to be drunk or stoned in public, and I know for certain you can’t claim the right to disconnect (heroin) or trip (hallucinate) in public. What you do on a boat, in the wilderness, or in your home, is up to you. Unfortunately this takes most of the joy out of recreational drugs. That said, if no one can tell, no one can tell. e) it is very hard to i) claim recreational use is a bad, ii) claim therapeutic use is a bad, iii) claim self medication in modernity is a bad, UNLESS iv) instead of self medication we provide both conditions non-hostile to mindfulness and provide mindfulness training (Stoicism etc) to the same degree that devotion does (continuous repetition and enforcement), and insurance (medical care, charity) to one another in case we fail and self medication is the only coince. (IMO, suicide should be an option, since all must have the right of exit.) f) The line of demarcation is crossed at (v) externalization of addiction. There can be no ‘right to addiction’. Empirically speaking, we should provide death sentences for addicts, or those engage in crime to finance addiction, or those who sell drugs to those who are addicts or engage in grim to finance addiction. (“The Duerte Rule”). We are currently running an experiment in Pornography. This experiment appears to a) suppress sexual frustration due to easy masturbation, b) dramatically reduce male sex drive and competitiveness (producing docility), c) produce sexual dysfunction in males, c) reduce sex crime, d) but feed extreme deviants (pedophiles, etc) – since novelty is part of the excitement that generates sexual stimulation we must run to extremes. There is no evidence that the human body (nudity) is a bad thing in public – probably just the opposite. There is evidence that infidelity may follow the degree of nudity in public (I can’t be sure of this). There is some evidence that limiting the range of pornography (which the industry does fairly well) might be of a benefit. There is some evidence that studio quality ‘romantic porn’ is not only not bad but instructive. There is plenty of evidence men are losing the skills (patience) taught to my generation during the 70’s. Ergo, if it’s not in public, and meets propertarian criteria, it is a matter of choice. It it externalizes into the public then it’s a violation. This is an empirical statement, and nothing else is decidable. I would recommend a park-like public since online access in private is universally available.

    1. ABORTION
      Search my site for my works on abortion. Net is that it’s undecidable. And therefore a matter of local choice.

    2. DEATH PENALTY
      The experiment with eliminating the death penalty has been a failure – a catastrophic one, and in our constitution I have corrected this to some degree and given license to restore even lynching.

    So the only difficult question here is drugs. The rest are pretty simple.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552145789 Timestamp) —“What did you mean by articulating fascism in an adult manner? What would that require?”— Fascism is very close to (and mussolini said so) a religion. And IMO the final step in eradicating evil religions. And the germans french and italians came close to eradicating it. But without fascism(kin worship) to replace christianity, the bottom fell into the trap of marxism and universalism thereby simply revising christianity(judaism v2) into pseudoscience. There is no false promise to nation-worship. It’s the optimum strategy for any and every non-parasitic polity. The problem is that it’s not articulated operationally (performatively) or in law (programmatically), and as such it’s not possible to resolve conflicts over not only its meaning but what it would mean for people day to day, month to month, year to year – and why they wouldn’t be put on the same path to failure that hitler and mussolini put us on. I mean, everyone tried to universalize. The bolsheviks probably are the ones at fault. and the jews at fault in broader europe. But the fact that ‘continentals’ still take from the church, rousseau, kant, hegel et all with their secular moralistic romantic prose means they are still failing just as the new right in europe has failed. The end result has to be inspiring. But it has to be inspiring because it is POSSIBLE to run a complex defense, polity, economy and kin group with some set of limits beyond which a leader is only masking failure to be able to do so. I mean, in the end you run out of revolutionary energy by which to bring people together. You have to eventually ‘govern’. No fascist has succeeded in ‘governing’ other than China. And china does it because of a vast specialized bureaucracy in doing it. And even they needed to hand over most of production to the middle class to prevent universal corruption that happens under arbitrary rule. So how do we produce a system of government encoded in rules (law) for a fascist government? Well. My work is pretty fucking fascist. And I think ethnocentrism is a message that will increasingly sell. And it doesn’t require an emergent leader. And I prefer monarchy over dictator for hoppeian reasons. So the problem remains how to create a ‘religion’ of fascism (inspiration), among american (or anglo in general) people for whom continental submission is not only unnatural but antithetical? The only answer is to embody that ‘discretion’ in a monarchy whose only reason for existence is what we call fascist: the nation as an army. Napoleon invented total war, and the nation state. But the fascists invented the total state as a continuous war of genetics, culture, economics, politics, and violence against other cultures in defense of the nation (people). I DO understand most people need to learn by doing, learn by experience, learn by instruction, and function by following rules – but one must have something to instruct them in that is relatively free of ‘appropriation’ and ‘floating’. Ergo, one needs to own the means of introducing each of those demands for learning: religion (experience), doing (ritual), instruction (School), and what to instruct them in a literature, and the means of operating that system (rules), and means of limiting ‘float’ in that system (law). I don’t quite know how to ‘sell’ fascism but I know how to sell monarchy, discretionary rule in the production of commons, and ethnocentrism and soft eugenics, so that we continue our history.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552145789 Timestamp) —“What did you mean by articulating fascism in an adult manner? What would that require?”— Fascism is very close to (and mussolini said so) a religion. And IMO the final step in eradicating evil religions. And the germans french and italians came close to eradicating it. But without fascism(kin worship) to replace christianity, the bottom fell into the trap of marxism and universalism thereby simply revising christianity(judaism v2) into pseudoscience. There is no false promise to nation-worship. It’s the optimum strategy for any and every non-parasitic polity. The problem is that it’s not articulated operationally (performatively) or in law (programmatically), and as such it’s not possible to resolve conflicts over not only its meaning but what it would mean for people day to day, month to month, year to year – and why they wouldn’t be put on the same path to failure that hitler and mussolini put us on. I mean, everyone tried to universalize. The bolsheviks probably are the ones at fault. and the jews at fault in broader europe. But the fact that ‘continentals’ still take from the church, rousseau, kant, hegel et all with their secular moralistic romantic prose means they are still failing just as the new right in europe has failed. The end result has to be inspiring. But it has to be inspiring because it is POSSIBLE to run a complex defense, polity, economy and kin group with some set of limits beyond which a leader is only masking failure to be able to do so. I mean, in the end you run out of revolutionary energy by which to bring people together. You have to eventually ‘govern’. No fascist has succeeded in ‘governing’ other than China. And china does it because of a vast specialized bureaucracy in doing it. And even they needed to hand over most of production to the middle class to prevent universal corruption that happens under arbitrary rule. So how do we produce a system of government encoded in rules (law) for a fascist government? Well. My work is pretty fucking fascist. And I think ethnocentrism is a message that will increasingly sell. And it doesn’t require an emergent leader. And I prefer monarchy over dictator for hoppeian reasons. So the problem remains how to create a ‘religion’ of fascism (inspiration), among american (or anglo in general) people for whom continental submission is not only unnatural but antithetical? The only answer is to embody that ‘discretion’ in a monarchy whose only reason for existence is what we call fascist: the nation as an army. Napoleon invented total war, and the nation state. But the fascists invented the total state as a continuous war of genetics, culture, economics, politics, and violence against other cultures in defense of the nation (people). I DO understand most people need to learn by doing, learn by experience, learn by instruction, and function by following rules – but one must have something to instruct them in that is relatively free of ‘appropriation’ and ‘floating’. Ergo, one needs to own the means of introducing each of those demands for learning: religion (experience), doing (ritual), instruction (School), and what to instruct them in a literature, and the means of operating that system (rules), and means of limiting ‘float’ in that system (law). I don’t quite know how to ‘sell’ fascism but I know how to sell monarchy, discretionary rule in the production of commons, and ethnocentrism and soft eugenics, so that we continue our history.

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552522887 Timestamp) —“@Curt Doolittle do you not know what a Value-Added Tax is?”— Yes. It is a compound tax (many points of taxation), and a variation on the sales tax (one point of taxation), and like sales taxes is one of the most regressive taxes known to man, particularly because of the distortion it places on the world pricing systems. Conversely, an income tax is the most progressive because unlike sales or vat taxes it provides the least if not zero distortion of world pricing systems that work against the interests of established (advanced) polities. The superior alternative to VAT is import-export (trade) tax and policy, which fosters ingroup (home) trade. There is one reason to employ a VAT: in very low trust countries with very low tax compliance (greece, italy, china), it creates the greatest opportunity for state intervention into private industry thus solving the problem of asymmetric information enabling avoidance. I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job to help all of you folk for whom doing so makes you useful idiots to those who have destroyed our civilization thru confusing a temporary period of pre and post war wealth with a durable competitive advantage – one which we no longer have. And which folk like you merely assist in perpetuating out of ignorance. Stalin’s useful idiots still reign.

  • Curt Doolittle wrote on Rob McMullan’s timeline.

    (FB 1552405560 Timestamp) (happy birthday man) 😉

  • Curt Doolittle updated his status.

    (FB 1552398589 Timestamp) SHIPPING FROM OUR SHOP —“Hi! I’m wondering if the shop at propertarianism.com delivers to [my country]? I’d like to order the 3” dress patch but the shop doesn’t find the cost of shipping to [my country].”— A Friend We have just launched. The shop is a placeholder, and not ‘live’ – and won’t be for some time. That said this is the set of products we plan to offer once the designs are done. I have learned to be patient with ‘design’ because brands ‘anchor’ rather quickly. That said, we will ship to anywhere it’s practically possible. And [your country] is practically possible. So, even if it means I have to have someone manually ship it, I will. 😉 Affections Curt PS: I suppose I should at least update the prices.