Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • 1) I’m happy to go into depth on this subject but the argument is quite simple,

    1) I’m happy to go into depth on this subject but the argument is quite simple, and was put forward by one of your commenters:
    –“Postmodernists: question who controls knowledge and where it comes from”–

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 12:56:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055442990527889410

    Reply addressees: @PhilosophyCuck @WorMartiN

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

    IN REPLY TO:

    @Jonas_Ceika

    @curtdoolittle @WorMartiN You also end by saying one should study law, not literature. First off, I don’t study literature. Secondly, how is that an argument? And how is if Marx is liable for murder at all relevant to my points? I’m genuinely confused.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055224404764999680

  • EXPLAINING RECIPROCITY TO A NEWB —“…If I see someone being raped, but do not

    EXPLAINING RECIPROCITY TO A NEWB

    —“…If I see someone being raped, but do nothing to help….”—

    Then by law, “You failed to remove the bad”.

    Incremental Suppression: the discovery and canonization of ‘bads’ (violations of reciprocity) by use of the one law of reciprocity (tort), the jury, and an independent professional judiciary, provides the most rapid means possible of continuous incremental suppressions of free riding, parasitism, and predation

    The Natural Law of Reciprocity: the demand for Productive, Fully Informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer of Demonstrated Interests (property), Free of Imposition of Costs upon the Demonstrated Interests (property) of others by externality.

    Remove the bad: Every man a warrior, sheriff, juror, legislator of the one natural law of reciprocity.

    |WESTERN CIVILIZATION| Transcendence (Evolutionary Velocity) via Sovereignty, Reciprocity, Truth and Duty, The judiciary of the natural law, and the consequential markets in everything. Where there the militia constitutions a private partnership and there is no state to perform the function of insurer of last resort, every man demonstrates reciprocity by performing the function of insurer of last resort.

    —“You’re conflating “good””—

    Anything that is not bad is good. Bads can be known. The preferential, the good (reciprocal preferential), are preferences. Whether they are preference or good is an opinion. Whether they are ‘bad’ and a violation of reciprocity is not an opinion. It is a fact (by Logical Necessity).

    —“Sacrifices”–

    No animal, including humans, demonstrates altruism, only kin selection, option buying, status acquisition (opportunity gain and discount), and reciprocity (debt) payment against status loss (and therefore opportunity loss). We cast this self interest as virtuous in order to acquire more of such behavior by grant of status to heroic display.

    —“…being good…”—

    Man is, by all evidence, amoral – preying upon or cooperating with as suits his self interest. Given a long time frame, it is in one’s self interest to cooperate because of the outsized returns on cooperation versus predation and boycott. One is ‘virtuous’ because all ‘virtues’ decrease the opportunity costs of cooperation and provide discounts on those higher returns. The fact that we attribute status (pay for with opportunity discounts [trust, recommendation, referrals], is merely compensation (investment) in the production of reciprocity by those with most evidence of it.

    QUOD ERAT DEMONSTRANDUM

    I don’t make mistakes. It’s my job.

    😉 lol

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-25 08:27:00 UTC

  • You didn’t come close to making an argument – just made excuses. I think you sho

    You didn’t come close to making an argument – just made excuses. I think you should address my response. It’s not worth hick’s time to answer that kind of ‘critique’ (Straw man). You can either make a scientific argument (not one of ‘intentions’ or ‘meaning’) or you can’t.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-24 20:43:38 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1055198149898395651

    Reply addressees: @WorMartiN @PhilosophyCuck

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054975670453972992

    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/1054975670453972992

  • It’s nonsense. A Toy. And kind of pathetic really. Very little better than the f

    It’s nonsense. A Toy. And kind of pathetic really. Very little better than the first experiment sixty years ago.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 22:07:21 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054494443250819072

    Reply addressees: @JSp46305240

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054493457346150401

    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/1054493457346150401

  • There is just too much “woo” in the current discourse

    There is just too much “woo” in the current discourse.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 21:56:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054491733139120128

    Reply addressees: @JSp46305240

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054490269599580160

    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/1054490269599580160

  • oooh… how can I make it?

    oooh… how can I make it?

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 18:05:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054433664854044672

    Reply addressees: @fourchette20

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054428643525570566

    IN REPLY TO:

    @fourchette20

    @curtdoolittle Turmeric tea w/ some black pepper is what does it for me

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054428643525570566

  • allergic to fermented anything. so no. 🙁

    allergic to fermented anything. so no. 🙁

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 18:05:35 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054433600119230465

    Reply addressees: @_Bee_Man_

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1054428263165190145

    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/1054428263165190145

  • HOW CAN I LEARN ABOUT PROPERTARIANISM OR NATURAL LAW? —“I’m interested in lear

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/07/13/what-is-natural-law-what-is-reciprocity/Q: HOW CAN I LEARN ABOUT PROPERTARIANISM OR NATURAL LAW?

    —“I’m interested in learning about your stance on propertarianism. So, how do you define the natural law? It’s something I’ve been searching and curious about for some time. And how does Propertarianism relate to this? In fact, I’m curious about the whole thing to be honest”— A Friend

    1 – FIRST QUESTION: WHAT IS NATURAL LAW?

    What is Natural Law? Reciprocity.

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/07/13/what-is-natural-law-what-is-reciprocity/

    For Christians, Natural Law in Your Context.

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/07/13/natural-law-for-christians/

    Natural Law Results in Market “Fascism”.

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/07/17/natural-law-facism-market-fascism/

    West Developed Natural Law To Profit From Domestication of Man (Eugenics).

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/06/27/natural-law-of-sovereign-men-domesticating-animal-man-for-peers-and-profit/

    Is Natural Law a Cult? (a Cult of The Law?)

    (it’s a cult of sovereignty)

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/06/16/is-natural-law-a-cult/

    It’s Natural Law “Fundamentalism” (“The White Law”)

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/05/13/natural-law-fundamentalism/

    It’s a Cult of Sovereignty Enforced by Law

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/04/14/the-cult-of-sovereignty-natural-law/

    WHY I WRITE NATURAL LAW AND SCIENCE NOT PHILOSOPHY

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/02/25/why-i-write-natural-law-science-not-philosophy-choice/

    Each of those posts is pretty short. Read in order, you’ll mostly ‘get’ it. Sometimes you have to read through those posts a few times. But it’s not that hard. You will understand.

    2 – SECOND QUESTION:

    How does propertarianism relate to natural law? It’s the application of natural law to all fields of inquiry (the scope of human knowledge).

    The scope of work would better be named “The Natural Law of Sovereign Men”, or just “Natural Law”. However, i solved ‘ethics’ first, and the name for that ethics is ‘propertarianism’. So we ‘stuck with propertarianism’ simply because of name recognition.

    The Scope of Propertarianism (or whatever you choose to call it: “Natural Law”, or “Natural Law of Sovereign Men”, or “The White Law” or the “hHilosophy of Western Civilization” ):

    https://propertarianism.com/2018/06/02/the-scope-of-propertarianism-natural-law/

    3 – THIRD QUESTION: THE OVERVIEW AND SUMMARY: An overview of the content of Propertarianism.

    https://propertarianism.com/basic-concepts/

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-22 11:44:00 UTC

  • It’s a Bit Like Studying for A STEM+L Degree

    October 21st, 2018 12:35 PM UNDERSTANDING PROPERTARIANISM IS A BIT LIKE STUDYING FOR A STEM+L DEGREE. THAT’S WHY IT TAKES TIME. IT’S NON-TRIVIAL.

    —“I’m having a hard time understanding propertarianism tbh. I’m reading your articles on the website but still….what should I do?:— Ayham Nedal

    [O]ur Reading List helps with general knowledge so that you can tell we know what we’re talking about. Propertarianism consists of a broad set of concepts that produce a logic and science of social science in all its uses. We draw terms and ideas from math to logic to philosophy to law to economics to the sciences. And it’s because we do so, that we were able to UNITE THE SCIENCES into a SINGLE LANGUAGE consistent across all of them, thereby eliminating the silos, and allowing us to identify the falsehoods or imprecisions in each of them. So we include books on every major subject in social science. The Introductions to Propertarianism are very helpful. They are: The CONCEPTS: 1) https://propertarianinstitute.com/basic-concepts/ (Which I should fill out a bit more if I get some time) AND THE CORE 2) https://propertarianinstitute.com/2016/01/05/an-overview-of-propertarianism-for-serious-newbies/ Libertarianism (Mises, Hayek, Haslitt, Rothbard, Hoppe), tried very hard to unite social science, economics, law, and politics but they were not successful. However, if you understand libertarianism, Ely Harman’s introduction is very helpful in helping with the transition. We probably should write a transition document for the Dark Enlightenment folk (Moldbug), and for Classical Liberals, and for Fascists. But we have only so much time…. HISTORY The cycles of history, and the competition between the Western (Science/Law), Asian (military/political), and Semitic (Religion,Mythology), is something almost anyone can understand. The secret to the west is easy to understand (computational velocity by sovereignty, reciprocity, natural law, markets in everything).. MANKIND The Acquisitionism (psychology), Propertarianism (ethics), and the Class System, and Perfect Government, are not difficult. but require learning some precise terms. This is harder than it should be in my opinion and I don’t know why it’s difficult. It’s just training yourself to categorize by property rather than moral norms. LOGIC Testimonialism (grammars, logic, scientific speech, and the geometry of meaning) is extremely challenging if you do not have experience in philosophy of science, math, and logic. and writing arguments in natural law (balanced transactions) takes quite a bit of practice. This is hard. But, it’s the entire basis of the program. Because it is the completion of the scientifc method that’s based upon testimonialism, and our ability to suppress fraud and deceit in the commons (political speech) is dependent upon encoding Testimonialism (a checklist of due diligences) into the law. IT’S BIG This is a bigger scope of work than Marxism. So we cover the entire spectrum of metaphysics, psychology, testimony (truth), ethics, sociology, politics, law, group evolutionary strategy, and war. Lastly, just ASK US. if I don’t answer, someone else will. We KNOW that we have to make a course for it. The course outline is already on the site. But without the book(s) it is not going to be easily taught. So everyone (me included) is waiting on me to finish – and it’s killing me…. lol.

  • “I am questioning the existence of Man (with a great M), and whether or not this

    —“I am questioning the existence of Man (with a great M), and whether or not this history you speak of is in actuality histories (plural) of (particular – not universal) men (with a lower M). Does Man exist, or is he just an abstraction that exists as a universal category concocted in the heads of enlightenment philosophers? If he does, how can his existence be known or proven? I apologize if I wasn’t clear before. I am positing an anti-humanist critique of universal-Man.”— Josef Kalinin

    Well, like any complex phenomenon, we can create a set of descriptions (general rules of arbitrary precision) at every scale (resolution) from MAN down to civilization …. and all the way down to the individual. And we can select some subset of causal narratives to illustrate the general rule we observe. As long as the relations are constant from top to bottom we have not engaged in error, bias, or deceit.

    Man exists since we know what is not man. Man is anything he is not. Whether we slice(organize) the loaf(category) of mankind one way or another only serves to limit the complexity of relations to a small enough set of causes that they are open to our perception, cognition, and recall.

    Man became ‘man’ in the enlightenment when the similarities of humans around the world became evident. One could (I have) argued we are different species, and that man, like ape is merely a taxonomic category divided by geography, morphology, and behavior but maintaining (some) reproductive capacity. (That is my approach). Because it is how we treat all OTHER animals.

    Man possesses an extremely dense neural system which is terribly expensive. He can move and model space like no other creature. He can forecast changes in state, and make tools. He can cooperate (or not). He can make language. He can negotiate. He can make narratives. And he can possess more or less agency. And strangely enough he can create other systems of calculation besides ordinary language.

    This is a terribly unique set of properties – and we have literally killed off most of (not all) of our competing species (previous generations of man) and probably would have had we not evolved our knowledge so quickly under agrarianism.

    So I don’t know what anti-humanist means. And I don’t know what else to tell you. But homo-sapiens-sapiens exists. Whether you want to classify man as we do say, Pan, into different chimps vs bonobos, or pretend man is NOT like chimps, where whites and east asians are bonobos (further evolved) is a function of ends you want to accomplish.

    From my part we are different species and it’s obvious, and man is a category of life forms among the great apes. And the races and subraces of man are species. And I see nothing to argue against that other than to lie for political reasons.

    Source date (UTC): 2018-10-21 14:26:00 UTC