Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • by Philip Clark Curt how would propertianism handle complex things in society li

    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.

    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”).

    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.

    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.

    3. ABORTION

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

    4. 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.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 12:55:00 UTC

  • MORE RESPONSE TO TURD FLINGING MONKEY Your counter proposition is counter to all

    MORE RESPONSE TO TURD FLINGING MONKEY

    Your counter proposition is counter to all logic and evidence, and that is that it is far more expensive to speak truthfully under due diligence than it is to spread falsehoods. Since the left spreads falsehoods faster than the right can correct them, and since the right is non-rational non-scientific purely traditional, moralizing, and religious in its arguments this not only means that the left wins but that without P the right continues to be argumentatively dead. And that is the lesson of the 20th c. That the industrialization of lying by media (propagandizing) was even more effective than the Pulpit. And that the right has continuously failed to put forth an argument. And the reason is that our traditional order is hostile to democracy since democracy is dysgenic, and aristocracy eugenic, and european shave been eugenic and aristocratic even under the dead weight of the church.

    The economics of lying are what they are. The right lost. And continues to lose. Ther eis only one means of sovereignty, liberty, and freedom which is the organized use of violence by sufficient men to win, and the imposition of rule of law of sovereignty reciprocity truth duty and markets in everything that has been our historical method of competing against the lower trust rest-of-the-world.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 08:48:00 UTC

  • SECOND RESPONSE TO​ TURD FLINGING MONKEY (good material for countering critics)

    SECOND RESPONSE TO​ TURD FLINGING MONKEY

    (good material for countering critics)

    —“@Curt Doolittle You’ve simply proven my point. Under your system, everyone would sue everyone for any criticism, and this would have a far reaching silencing effect, which would make civil discourse impossible out of fear, and lead to violence as the natural consequence. You say “fewer public opinions of higher quality”, but in reality it would simply lead to the mass silencing on opinions which are not approved by the ruling class of judges who determine what is and isn’t approved.

    You accuse me of straw-manning while proving my point. Obviously under your system you would sue me and it would be left to judge to sort out. Maybe they side with you, maybe they side with me, but either way it rests on the personal beliefs, biases, and interpretations of judges with no input from the people. This is rule by judges, but you don’t see it that way in the same way that Communists would reject the idea that their system leads to a Dictatorship. They would scoff at the idea that they support Dictators, even though that would inevitably happen (and has happened) whenever their system is implemented.”—

    So how would judges and JURIES make decisions on the truthfulness, due diligence, and harm of a statement – and why would that be DISCRETIONARY rather than DECIDABLE?

    In other words, since P consists of a methodology for such due diligence under law, such that you know, and the court knows, and the jury knows, you performed sufficient due diligence to satisfy demand for decidability before making a claim – then whether the claim is later found true or false is immaterial.

    And if found against you, retraction and equal promotion would be required – plus court costs.

    In this case you did not criticize wether that method of due diligence would provide decidability versus discretion. You assumed P is an ideology or philosophy rather than a methodology where one part of that methodology which consists of those steps of due diligence.

    And you did not criticize whether that methodology will in fact provide decidability rather than discretion that you accuse me of fostering.

    The answer is, that you are lazy, didn’t do your due diligence, and sought attention and signaling and perhaps income by criticizing that which you did not understand is a formal (in the grammatical sense ) logic.

    And like every excuse maker in history you are trying to preserve your source of attention, signaling, self image, and possible income, by externalizing costs onto others – in my case defense of my work, it’s brand, and the potential to offer a viable solution to conquest by the sophisms of the left.

    Now, were ths law in place, you would no doubt simply have done your due diligence and PAID THE COST YOURSELF, rather than making a dishonest statement in public and forcing me to bear the cost of defending it.

    Or you could have, at the very least, engaged in reciprocity, produced a list of questions, and either published those questions or asked me to answer them for you.

    Instead you made an assertion without the effort and knowledge of doing so and forced me to bear a cost. In other words, you’re a thief.

    P asks you to perform due diligence before polluting the informational commons with falsehoods. P consists of a methodology that you can use and the court can use to test whether you performed due diligence.

    P doesn’t ask us to know the truth. it asks us to perform due diligence against making false and harmful statements that pollute the information commons.

    The jury is exceptionally good at testing whether one did due diligence, and whether that due diligence is reasonable.

    Now, could keynesian economics survive? I don’t think so. Could postmodern academy survive? I don’t think so. But conservatism and anglo libertarianism can because they consists of nothing other than what I am proposing: rule of law with full accounting of display word and deed.

    Stifling discourse isn’t the point. Stifling the stupid, ignorant, lazy, dishonest, and malfeasant is the point.

    You would adapt your behavior. your returns on laziness in exchange for attention, signals, and possible income would be lower, and therefore the cost to the informational commons for the damage you do to it would be lower.

    The problem with our law is the increase in discretion under activist pressure because there is no formal logic to the law that limits its abuse.

    Now there is.

    No more lies. No more fraudulent returns. Not in commerce, not in finance, not in economics and politics – and not in shit-talking virtue signaling, attention seeking nonsense from the peanut gallery.

    Pay your way to enlightenment. Don’t make others pay to educate you in defense of the commons you seek to pollute.

    –follow up–

    (and it kind of pains me to point out that rule of law, which is the method that separates the west from ALL OTHER PEOPLES and is the single most influential reason for our success in the ancient and modern worlds, is how we live and how we always have lived other than under communism, socialism, and discretionary fascism. Rule of law is the goal of all peoples. It is GOVERNMENT in the via positiva that is discretionary. It is RULE in the via negativa by LAW that is not discretionary. WHile there is value in discretion in the allocation of punishments there is very little value in discretion of truth or falsehood. And despite what you (naively) might think, the courts are absurdly good at what they do. Despite the fact that we have ‘shitty’ laws. Particularly shitty laws defending men from women and the state.)

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 07:41:00 UTC

  • I have a sense of humor. 🙂

    I have a sense of humor. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-07 00:51:05 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103458010775605248

    Reply addressees: @TheOldOrder1

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103383516543438849

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1103383516543438849

  • RESPONSE TO “TURD FLINGING MONKEY” AND KRITARCHY =Turd Flinging Monkey= == CURTD

    RESPONSE TO “TURD FLINGING MONKEY” AND KRITARCHY

    =Turd Flinging Monkey=

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lr90HDyfpU&

    == CURTD ==

    Sorry man but Propertarianism is a METHODOLOGY. You can produce any kind of government with it that you want. I Talk about restoring fascism, monarchical government, multi house government, as options for reforming our system. I propose a constitution for restoring the constitution and defending and repairing the weaknesses in it, and another for devolving the federal government into an insurer of last resort.

    But Kritarchy, especially in the jewish method (legal interpretation of literary tradition), where there is no means of commons production (The reason the jews always failed) is pretty much the opposite. You could say instead, that the ultimate government under the method would be more like the way the church served as a judiciary over european nationstates, and that church as it would have evolved had natural law and deism (anthropomorphism of the laws of nature and the natural law) replaced parable and supernaturalism.

    Very tedious to defend against straw men.

    =Turd Flinging Monkey=

    I’m referring specifically to elements such as making lying illegal, and declaring intangibles property. This would necessarily open up a legal nightmare which would ultimately rest on the human biases of judge to sort out.

    However if Propertarianism can be anything, and its merely methodology, then so be it. It appeared to be promoted as a system of government, not merely a methodology to create any government you want.

    ==CURTD==

    Yes, It is a methodology. And as far as I know it is the missing logic of psychological and social sciences including economics and law – because it has parsimonious explanatory power in every one of those disciplines.

    Yes it is possible to use this methodology to construct any system of laws transparently and truthfully.

    Yes it is possible to use this methodology to plug holes in our common law, our legislative processes, and our judicial processes. Because the method, by producing a formal logic of the ‘soft (human)’ sciences enables and forces judgements made not by interpretation but by application of that logic.

    The prosecution of lies in the commons is possible because today we successfully suppress fraud in commercial speech, and in the past we used to prosecute scolding, libel, slander, fraud, fraud by omission, fraud by conspiracy, and treason in defense of the commons (King’s Peace).

    We allowed the state and the left to use the hole in ‘free speech’, rather than free truthful speech, to destroy our protections of the informational commons. And we did not repair the holes in the constitution (ascent w/o court ascent, inability of the court to return undecidability to the legislature, and that the court’s ‘interpretation’)

    We did so for the simple reason that christianity is constructed by the same technique of lying, in excitement of the same incentives, as are marxism, postmodernism, feminism, and denialism: false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul and critique, and environmental saturation with repetition of the deceit despite persistent contrary evidence. This is the same behavior as drug addiction because it is in our underlying biology why we are vulnerable to drug addiction: demand for mindfulness.

    But rather than expressly permitting christian ‘parable’ and outlawing all other forms of deceit (it was the anglo enlightenment at the time, and religion, philosophy and science were competing), we have preserved those holes in our law permitting the abuse of our people and the gradual INTENTIONAL degradation of our informational commons, upon which most of the population is more dependent than upon reason.

    As in all eras, every time we increase the scope of suppressions of the law, there are a fury of cases until the incentives work their way through the ‘markets’ such that people change their behavior in order to avoid prosecution under the law.

    This particular law I (we) recommend suppresses commercial, financial, economic, political, and pedagogical speech IN THE COMMONS from using that method of false promise, baiting into hazard, the sophisms of pilpul (justification) and critique (criticism) and environmental saturation with these deceits.

    For example, in this case I could claim damage because you published a piece of of assertive critique (straw manning) rather than simply asking the question whether what you thought was true or false, and operating from a position of knowledge rather than ignorance. Because there are legitimate criticisms of the work. I know them and I publish them with frequency. Especially when the work is available for free, the definition of it on the home page in bright colors, and the overview of the innovations in an outline with links to relevant arguments. As such you sought attention, virtue signals, and if you collect revenue, you sought profits, by failure of due diligence before asserting a criticism in public.

    The result would be fewer public opinions of higher quality, and a near eradication of leftist discourse. Conservatives would not have this problem since conservatism is largely reducible to defense of all forms of property equally, and libertarianism defense of private property, and the left defense of nothing other than unmeritocratic consumption of children.

    But the fact that law has been, is now, and must be the means by which we engineer a social order of sufficient precision that advanced civilization can occur in a complex division of cognition and labor among at least the productive classes – although arguably religion is sufficient for slaves, serfs, underclass, and unskilled and semiskilled labor. Although they must be bound by law, since law remains, the adjudication of differences in conflicts over property, where property the result of demonstrated interest (costs).

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-06 10:02:00 UTC

  • WE LOVE YOU MR. PRESIDENT!!!

    WE LOVE YOU MR. PRESIDENT!!!

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 11:23:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102529967236222976

    Reply addressees: @realDonaldTrump

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102233209708924930

    IN REPLY TO:

    @realDonaldTrump

    …said was a total lie, but Fake Media won’t show it. I am an innocent man being persecuted by some very bad, conflicted & corrupt people in a Witch Hunt that is illegal & should never have been allowed to start – And only because I won the Election! Despite this, great success!

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102233209708924930

  • There is no substance here. I’m shaming this moron for calling me a ‘fed’ and in

    There is no substance here. I’m shaming this moron for calling me a ‘fed’ and in general being a moron. Someone needs to discipline the children that get out of line. lol

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 00:55:26 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102371942894653443

    Reply addressees: @Rafael13514 @realjoshneal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102371369931735040

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102371369931735040

  • ( I worked for the justice department back around 1990. )

    ( I worked for the justice department back around 1990. )

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 00:53:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102371509539090432

    Reply addressees: @Rafael13514 @camelback_t

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102370251046445056

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102370251046445056

  • Sure I can. I can work in the interests of babies, children, youths, failures, a

    Sure I can. I can work in the interests of babies, children, youths, failures, and morons, as well as people with agency. I mean – that’s what hierarchies are for. My interests are to ignore morons and talk only to smart people. That said, morons are always going to chime in….

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 00:52:49 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102371283386486787

    Reply addressees: @realjoshneal

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102367764617068544

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102367764617068544

  • We will go mainstream. And the truth is the whackjob right is a liability to us

    We will go mainstream. And the truth is the whackjob right is a liability to us.

    Source date (UTC): 2019-03-04 00:34:53 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102366767807123456

    Reply addressees: @camelback_t

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102364988163936256

    IN REPLY TO:

    Original post on X

    Original tweet unavailable — we could not load the text of the post this reply is addressing on X. That usually means the tweet was deleted, the account is protected, or X does not expose it to the account used for archiving. The Original post link below may still open if you view it in X while signed in.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1102364988163936256