Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • Made my day. 🙂

    Made my day. 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-14 13:57:18 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/698868622299697152

    Reply addressees: @AidanTierian

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/698193648668798976

    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/698193648668798976

  • idem

    …idem

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-12 11:44:00 UTC

  • Curt may be some interesting stuff for you here

    Curt may be some interesting stuff for you here.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-12 11:39:00 UTC

  • Peter, It’s troubling instead that we are experiencing the deterministic consequ

    Peter,

    It’s troubling instead that we are experiencing the deterministic consequences 100 years of innumerate policy and 50 years of pseudoscientific and contra rational policy — and we’re just larger and wealthier, with no regional competitors, so the deterministic outcome took longer to play out.

    So if the choice is between your assessment of oddity or my assessment of predictability, the explanatory power of my rather parsimonious suspicion seems like a far better truth candidate. 😉

    You weren’t there in 1980 when we planned to try this. I was. It is strange

    that immigration was the tipping point rather than state bankruptcy. But this

    event will do. 😉

    We will have our revolution one way or another. We just need the excuse

    on one hand and a viable alternative on the other.

    I am nearly done with the latter. 🙂

    This year or next. Not long now.

    Truth is enough.

    Cheers from the land of cryptic

    phflosophy.

    🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-12 09:46:00 UTC

  • Q&A: ARE THE MODERN LIBERAL WORKS *WRONG*, OR…?” —“do you think that the fou

    Q&A: ARE THE MODERN LIBERAL WORKS *WRONG*, OR…?”

    —“do you think that the foundational modern liberal works are *wrong* in the sense that they are invalid, that their premises do not hold, or that there are much larger countervailing forces not accounted for in their frameworks?”— A Reader

    I am not sure what you mean by ‘prevailing modern liberal works’.

    I say, frequently, that the enlightenment project was a failure, in each culture, because it was merely a power play.

    The anglo saxon (english) order was the most substantial invention since the roman.

    That we had constructed a set of houses that functioned as a market for the construction of commons between the classes.

    And that the church consituted the ‘lower’ house, and the aristocracy “warriros” the upper house, and the small business owners the common house. and that there was never a separation of church and state. There was a separation of powers.

    And that this model largely worked until the introduction of women, and the use of democracy to create a monopoly (single house) by which we overthrew the other houses, creating a monopoly.

    Majority rule is tyranny. always.

    We need to return to a market for the commons.

    So, in that regard, I don’t see much value in anything other than Hayek and smith for most of the enligthenment. Jefferson’s attempt to create a formal legal logic in our consitution was visoinary. But incomplete.

    I would like to correct these two errors, by creating a formal logic of law (propertariansim) a forma logic of truth (testimonialism), and restoring the houses that represent the classes, and particularly the houses for women.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2016-02-09 04:07:00 UTC

  • Q: Curt: Is The Occupation of Artist a Moral One?

    [O]bjective Morality consists of prohibitions on the impositions of costs upon others that would provide a disincentive for cooperation. We produce many norms that we treat as morality, just as we produce political commands that we treat as law. But norms are not necessarily moral, and legislation is rarely law. We also conflate heroism with morality. Which despite being two sides of the same coin, are opposites. Heroism consists in contributing to the commons. Morality in not privatizing the commons (parasitism). So an artist can be heroic or not, and an artist can be moral or not. He can be heroic and moral. He can be moral but not heroic. It is quite hard to be heroic and immoral. They tend to cancel each other out. So if an artist is not living parasitically, is producing art that is not immoral, and attempting to contribute to the commons, he is moral and heroic.

  • Q: Curt: Is The Occupation of Artist a Moral One?

    [O]bjective Morality consists of prohibitions on the impositions of costs upon others that would provide a disincentive for cooperation. We produce many norms that we treat as morality, just as we produce political commands that we treat as law. But norms are not necessarily moral, and legislation is rarely law. We also conflate heroism with morality. Which despite being two sides of the same coin, are opposites. Heroism consists in contributing to the commons. Morality in not privatizing the commons (parasitism). So an artist can be heroic or not, and an artist can be moral or not. He can be heroic and moral. He can be moral but not heroic. It is quite hard to be heroic and immoral. They tend to cancel each other out. So if an artist is not living parasitically, is producing art that is not immoral, and attempting to contribute to the commons, he is moral and heroic.

  • Q: How Can You Prove Monotheism Wrong?

    Note: the O’henry ending is that given the alternatives why would you claim monotheism was not wrong except for immoral ends?

    How can you prove monotheism wrong, Mr. Doolittle?

    [W]ell that depends upon your concept of Gods. If you say that there is one set of optimum laws of man and nature then I would agree that this is truth and truth and God are synonyms. If you say that we seek to find an anthropomorphic representation of those laws which man can seek to achieve, aspire to imitate, or at least obey, then I would agree with that. If you say that there exists one God then that is demonstrably false. Since clearly many exist and have existed, and most are incompatible. If you say that there exists a supernatural entity in the universe with sentience and will that is not a construct of man and mans minds then I would question your reasoning. It is not for me to prove one God is false. Since I clearly advocate the first and second principles above. It is instead am a question of why those who say otherwise do so? In other words if there is some thing that violates that truth, natural and physical laws then it either is not God, or it is the work of men trying to deceive us. So my response is that since I try to act in accordance with laws that man cannot use for deceptive purposes, why would you or others seek to advocate that which is not compatible with truth, natural and physical law, except to do so for deceptive purposes, or because you are pawns if that which is not God?

  • Q: How Can You Prove Monotheism Wrong?

    Note: the O’henry ending is that given the alternatives why would you claim monotheism was not wrong except for immoral ends?

    How can you prove monotheism wrong, Mr. Doolittle?

    [W]ell that depends upon your concept of Gods. If you say that there is one set of optimum laws of man and nature then I would agree that this is truth and truth and God are synonyms. If you say that we seek to find an anthropomorphic representation of those laws which man can seek to achieve, aspire to imitate, or at least obey, then I would agree with that. If you say that there exists one God then that is demonstrably false. Since clearly many exist and have existed, and most are incompatible. If you say that there exists a supernatural entity in the universe with sentience and will that is not a construct of man and mans minds then I would question your reasoning. It is not for me to prove one God is false. Since I clearly advocate the first and second principles above. It is instead am a question of why those who say otherwise do so? In other words if there is some thing that violates that truth, natural and physical laws then it either is not God, or it is the work of men trying to deceive us. So my response is that since I try to act in accordance with laws that man cannot use for deceptive purposes, why would you or others seek to advocate that which is not compatible with truth, natural and physical law, except to do so for deceptive purposes, or because you are pawns if that which is not God?

  • What is the Source of Political Power? Organizing Using Three Tools of Coercion.

    –“Curt: Political power ultimately originates from Economics or exchange, right?”—

    [I] am not sure I understand this question. There are three methods of power: 1) force, 2) payment, 3) gossip. One can use those three methods exclusively or in combination to band together into groups or hierarchies, and the focus the group’s efforts on the application of force, payment, or gossip (rallying/shaming/including/ostracizing). Political power – meaning anything ranging from monopoly producer of commons to a distributed production of commons – can be constructed from any one or combination of, those methods of coercion. Political power originates in the ability of humans to organize and coerce. It just so happens that we use gossip to rally and shame and ostracize people from production and opportunity for consumption. But then we scale. It just so happens that you need to use violence to suppress parasitism sufficiently for a market to form, at that scale. But then we scale further. And then to use law to suppress cheating, fraud, and to impose performance, and restitution, and if necessary, punishment. But then we scale further. And then we use wealth created by the application of violence and law and to force market participation rather than parasitism, to pay off those who cannot be forced. And then, we hit the novel inflection point, and scale further: And so we then use force, law and gossip to suppress the suppressors, and rely entirely upon rule of law, without a group that exercises power. So the sooner one develops rule of law, the sooner one starts suppressing the parasitism of the monopoly. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine.