Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • @ahaspel … the combination of 1 and 2: (a) signaling, (b) hermeneutics, (c) co

    @ahaspel … the combination of 1 and 2: (a) signaling, (b) hermeneutics, (c) cosmopolitanism, (d) marxist-postmodernism. False???

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:43:50 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885842272566345728

  • @ahaspel Exceptional parsimony. But I notice two things 1) observer without taki

    @ahaspel Exceptional parsimony. But I notice two things 1) observer without taking responsibility for change. 2) criticism without solution.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:41:57 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/885841796944756736

  • No. The economic foundations of NS were impossible. Iv’e gone through it and so

    No. The economic foundations of NS were impossible. Iv’e gone through it and so have others. Economics was an afterthought.

    If you want to say communism, socialism, social democracy, classical liberalism, and market fascism serve simply as a set of economic orders for the slave class, peasant class, working class, middle class, and aristocratic class, in that order, then I would say that’s correct.

    And that we can determine which political order is necessary for any group given its degree of (under)development. I would argue that this is precisely why we need separate micro states on one hand, or multiple economies on the other hand. As far as I can tell it’s almost impossible to create multiple economies in a single polity. But it is possible to use monarchy and natural law and to create any kind of economic polity. And that appears to be possible.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:37:00 UTC

  • So you are retroactively applying the necessity of money and prices in calculati

    So you are retroactively applying the necessity of money and prices in calculation and planning argument to property?

    Hmmm….

    Engels wrote the seminal work on the origin of property in man.

    Butler Sheaffer wrote the seminal work on its universality.

    Haidt’s bibliography contains dozens of explanations of its evolutionary origin.

    Evolutionary Biology (Axelrod) explained its necessity (cooperation).

    And….

    As for calculation, Weber stated that this was the future of all disciplines:calculation.

    Simmel in his ‘philosophy of money’ provides the necessity of money.

    Mises restates Simmel as an argument against socialism in his failed attempt at operationalism in economics (praxeology).

    As far as I know the origin of possession is pre-human.

    The need to defend self.The need to possess territory and defend nests or offspring.

    The origin of the habit of property is necessary for any independent but cooperative organism to prevent disincentive to cooperate.

    The origin of the norm of private property is to keep assets within families during inheritance.

    The origin of the law of private property is to prevent retaliation cycles.

    The origin of contract is to allow cooperation and planning across time.

    The origin of money and prices is to allow calculation and commensurability.

    The origin of property RIGHTS is the common law by which disputes were settled

    The criteria of dispute settlement arose in parallel to the granularity of property (tribe > family > generation > Individual)..

    The criteria of dispute resolution at the individual level is investment.

    The test of transfer of property is reciprocity, not only preserving investments but requiring gains.

    So as far as I know the origin of property is the preservation of investment and the prevention of parasitism that leads to conflict in cooperating organisms. And that monetary calculation would be possible whether private, generational, familial, or tribal (common) property existed.

    And as far as I know you are attempting to create a circular argument by stating that calculation that was made possible by property is the cause rather than property was a consequence of the scope of cooperation given the probability of retaliation, that is necessary to preserve that cooperation, such that individuals preserve the incentive to invest and save.

    In other words, the origin of property is the commons at each incremental scale.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 12:26:00 UTC

  • @ Daniel Gurpide So how does one obtain the good of the german model without the

    @ Daniel Gurpide

    So how does one obtain the good of the german model without the bad of it? I mean, all conflationary methods produce this externality. Only deflationary methods don’t. But is it that the anglo-american legal framework … or put it differently, how else can one produce BOTH a persistent traditional strategy (mythology) AND an evolutionary (scientific) set of institutions of perpetual adaptation? Especially given the human desire for the benefits of change by OTHERS, but the demand for constancy of the self?

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-14 08:58:00 UTC

  • Reminds me of you Curt Doolittle

    Reminds me of you Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 18:39:00 UTC

  • “Curt, So the argument that ‘sentient beings’ or ‘moral actors’ do not qualify a

    —“Curt, So the argument that ‘sentient beings’ or ‘moral actors’ do not qualify as “resources” can not stand up to simple deflation of the term. Human actors demonstrably have the ability to benefit and gain from the transformation and consumption of other human capital, in many cases without the need violent compulsion. The only means of insuring the principle that you yourself differ from ‘live stock’ is in reciprocal construction of the notion between those who can demonstrate the necessary agency.”— Nicholas Arthur Catton

    (Well done.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 14:24:00 UTC

  • “If such a trajectory ends in the near destruction of the human species and the

    —“If such a trajectory ends in the near destruction of the human species and the planet, what lessons should the survivors inherit? It seems you’re largely in agreement with many the historical/factual claims of left/feminist scholarship. You simply advocate the power and privilege they despise.”— Skye Stewart

    (a) What trajectory? Markets in Everything?

    (b) What have the other trajectories achieved? By civilization. Comparatively? What about the difference between the modern age, the middle christian age, and the ancient age? And how did we exit the christian age?

    (c) Power and privilege? You mean, the power to prevent parasitism and require trade? The Power to PREVENT over-reproduction?

    I don’t disagree with marxists or the feminists on fact so much as value and institutions. As far as I can tell it’s just an r/k argument over dysgenic expansion and regression or eugenic expansion and progress.

    Certainly at present, all challenges to the human race are the product of over-reproduction of the sub 100’s.

    I mean, it’s roughly mathematical: what population can consume continued increasing percentages of the energy capacity of the planet (using say, solar terms)?

    Or said differently, how can we keep increasing individual consumption of energy while preserving the carrying capacity of the planet – especially given that we are in a ‘quiet period’ of astro-geological activity – and at what point do we reach equilibration (limits).

    I’ll suggest that I’m not the first person to think this through, and that the number of that population is a lot closer to one billion than it is to ten billion – a fact that will become obvious with the next economic-generational cycle.

    So whose strategy is more likely to end the world: the r-strategy of dysgenic reproduction of the k-strategy of eugenic reproduction? What problems do we currently face that are not problems of overpopulation? Why should we invest energy in more bodies (greater consumption) than in fewer bodies and greater innovation and production?

    There is only one extant problem facing man: the ratio of rates of population to rates of depletion of energy reserves.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 14:17:00 UTC

  • MORE ON VINDICATING THE BORDERLAND ARGUMENT Well you’re just redefining libertar

    MORE ON VINDICATING THE BORDERLAND ARGUMENT

    Well you’re just redefining libertarianism to suit yourself, without first eradicating abrahamic, rothbardian, libertarianism.

    Why do you throw this nonsense around?

    Free imperial cities were given special privilege to report directly to the empire rather than the local prince/whatever.

    That’s all it meant. Escaping REGIONAL law, so that one was subject only to IMPERIAL(National) law. Why was this useful? Well, princes could not defend cities alone, cities COULD defend themselves, and the tax revenue was better collected by the central government.

    Now I could go into WHY all these things are natural occurrences of the geography and rates of production, but I doubt that’s necessary.

    In other words, europe was under constant settlement and resettlement after the romans destroyed celtic civilization and opened the land for germanic invasion from the north. but after the fall of rome we ended up with nothing constant raids by muslims in the south, and nothing but a borderland in the north, and the process of accumulating production, capital, trade, markets, evolved until three events: the The Hansa, the HRE, and their interruption by the Atlantic Trade. Then their restoration as what we see as ww1/2, and the defeat of the germanic civilization by the jewish/russian and christian/anglo

    There are no borderlands. Those who desire liberty or sovereignty are vastly outnumbered, just as our warrior ancestors were outnumbered versus the much more developed and populous east.

    How can you create a condition of liberty except thru sovereignty? And how can you create a condition of sovereignty in fact? You cannot do it without the multipliers of high trust commons. You cannot do it without some scale – by federation sure – but scale. You cannot do it without maintaining a population base larger than those who desire liberty and sovereignty. It’s not possible.

    Ergo, the only way I can find to create a condition of liberty for those who are not in fact sovereign, despite our small numbers, is to TAKE territory, and HOLD it. And produce PRODUCTION that makes it possible to hold it.

    Hunter gathering died. Farming has died. We are in an era of markets. The first market is the polity. And polities are like any business they must survive competition. And they must survive competition by providing a product that is productive enough to stay alive.

    Liberty exists by permission. Sovereignty exists in fact. Sovereignty is the product of VIOLENCE. Liberty is the product of LAW made possible by Sovereignty, and the mandate of the sovereigns under threat of VIOLENCE.

    There can exist no liberty movement that is not subervient to an aristocracy movement. Women and jews and gypsies can just continue their low level parasitism under any ruler. But if you want liberty you must have a sovereign to obtain it from. If you choose to be that sovereign, then you choose to rule. And to rule you must possess the violence necessary to preserve that rule.

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-13 09:39:00 UTC

  • (In response to trash talking white boys and trash talking black girls: …There

    (In response to trash talking white boys and trash talking black girls: …There is a general perception that black women are stupid, easier to seduce, and more consistently sexually accessible, with less inter-gender compromise. In other words, it’s demonstration of a general disdain for black people. Or put differently, it’s compensating for inadequacy among fellow white people by disrespecting black people who they deem of lower status. In other words, you just ignore white people’s nonsense just as white people ignore black people’s nonsense. It’s all status signaling to compensate for the reality of our relative market value in sexual, social, economic, and political markets. People are ridiculous in every group. We all want to feel better about ourselves than the markets demonstrate our real value to be: near-zero. we all seek to comfort in imagining there is someone below us in the layer cake.)

    Source date (UTC): 2017-07-11 14:15:00 UTC