Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • If you are a programmer used to reading and writing code it should be easy. Else

    If you are a programmer used to reading and writing code it should be easy. Else not.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 14:52:20 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/689097999889354752

    Reply addressees: @DIA_operative @helios_unbound @276039081 @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/666711007356542976

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DIA_operative

    @helios_unbound @276039081 @curtdoolittle @Outsideness Perhaps it’s my passion for cryptography but I’d always thought his writing lucid

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/666711007356542976

  • I write in the analytic not sympathetic mode, and I demand a great deal from rea

    I write in the analytic not sympathetic mode, and I demand a great deal from readers

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-18 14:51:25 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/689097767780790273

    Reply addressees: @DIA_operative @helios_unbound @276039081 @Outsideness

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/666711007356542976

    IN REPLY TO:

    @DIA_operative

    @helios_unbound @276039081 @curtdoolittle @Outsideness Perhaps it’s my passion for cryptography but I’d always thought his writing lucid

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/666711007356542976

  • Q&A: GREAT QUESTION! —“CURT: Can you explain your disdain for “rationalism”? A

    Q&A: GREAT QUESTION!

    —“CURT: Can you explain your disdain for “rationalism”? And how differentiate it with critical-rationalism?”—

    SIMPLE ANSWER ON DIFFERENCES : SCOPE OF YOUR WARRANTY

    1) Rationalism requires we test for internal consistency(logical) and non contradiction(not false), but not that we test for external correspondence (empirically consistent) in order to attempt to falsify our ideas (hypotheses). In other words we don’t have to warranty that our ideas are externallly correspondent. We can claim that we have been forthright (rational) and free of blame for having made rational choices.

    2) Critical rationalism requires that we test for internal consistency, and external correspondence, and that we attempt to falsify them because confirming them is meaningless..

    3) Testimonialism asks us to test by rationalism, critical rationalism, and moral objectivity.

    SIMPLE ANSWER ON RATIONALISM IN ETHICS

    In the sequence: pedagogical ethics, virtue ethics, rule ethics, outcome ethics, and testimonial ethics, each describes the ethical model one must rely upon given one’s knowledge and understanding.

    Now if one uses an ethical model lower than one’s understanding, then one can intentionally use that lower ethical criteria to justify unethical behavior.

    This is what libertines (libertarians) do, when they refer to the NAP and self determination of morality. They are claiming non-responsibiity for externalities caused by their actions.

    So you sort of have to warranty your actions by using an ethical system someone will believe you are not using for theft.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 12:07:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“CURT: When I have attempted to actually debate formally or write a crit

    Q&A: —“CURT: When I have attempted to actually debate formally or write a critical essay i can apply deductive logic – but I can’t do it on a whim. [I wish I could]”—-

    You know, I read my first book on logic in 7th grade and realized that I had an entirely subconscious talent for it.

    But, it’s counter-intuitive, and it’s expensive, and it takes a lot of practice. You’ll notice is that the more you do it the better you get. And as long as you don’t try to cut corners, and you stick with it, and argue daily for at least an hour, after about two or three years you get very, very good at it.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-15 07:34:00 UTC

  • “Religion’s “warranty” is unverifiable (unobservable afterlife or reincarnation)

    —“Religion’s “warranty” is unverifiable (unobservable afterlife or reincarnation).”— Steve Pender

    Productive, Fully Informed, Warrantied, Voluntary Transfer consisting only of externalities of the same.

    Violates the rule of warranty.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 13:50:00 UTC

  • shaming me you do what you accuse me of”— Ah. But the condition is quite diffe

    http://www.propertarianism.com/en_US/2015/07/19/propertarianism-is-for-the-prosecution/—“by shaming me you do what you accuse me of”—

    Ah. But the condition is quite different. Lets see…

    Work through it because you cannot escape the fact that you use misrepresentative language to obscure your attribution of authority to the self by justificationary-rationality, rather than to non-retaliation (cost) by ratio-empiricism. ie: you err.

    We aren’t debating any longer. I accuse you of deceit. This deceit may be the product of wishful thinking. It may be justified by inarticulate obscurant language, but it is not deceit by intent, then it is deceit by wishful thinking none the less.

    ***NAP was employed by separatists to attempt to assert that out-group non-retaliation was a rule for in-group cooperation.*** Jewish law, culture, and religion attempt to preserve separatism so that they gain the benefits of the host’s commons production, without paying for the normative commons. Just as Gypsies do, but they keep the cost low enough, and appeal to our altruism enough, that the cost of extermination is more than we are willing to pay.

    And this is the Libertine (NAP/ISV strategy), which is to claim not that separatism is a parasitic subgroup strategy within a host. But that all members of a polity should engage in separatist ethics.

    And this is non-rational. It is the host’s production of commons that make free riding possible. It is the host’s production of commons that make the host itself possible. Because even your parasitic ethics of NAP/IVP must be constructed as a commons, and enforced as a commons.

    ***I’ll simplify it: we cannot all be parasites. ergo: libertinism is to commons as socialism is to production.*** Socialists lay claim to the fruits of other’s production. Libertines (rothbardians) lay claim to the fruits of others production of commons. But humans don’t tolerate free riders on production or commons. It’s a form of aggression against their property-en-toto: that which they have expended effort to inventory as potential for future production or consumption.

    (This is probably more understandable to you than the technique of analytic philosophy.)

    So, you see, that is what separates those of us who defend the commons from those of you who harm it. We pay the cost of commons maintenance. You do not.

    And that is why you can select free riding on the commons using NAP/IVP and we select NA/DemonstratedProperty despite the high cost of policing the commons.

    So since you engage in deceit and harm the commons, I engage in accusation.

    And when that occurs we are not debating. I am prosecuting you.

    Because you pollute the commons with excuses for non payment of them while relying upon them. ie you’re a parasite.

    PROPERTARIANISM IS FOR THE PROSECUTION

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-14 01:27:00 UTC

  • Responding to “Aggressively Unreadable Doolittle”

    RE: http://selfadoration.com/for-luke-williams-heres-a-com…/8123

    —“or the aggressively-unreadable Doolittle.”—-

    You know, I want to say ‘ouch’ but, I have to just own it. lol. On the other hand have you read Hegel? Wittgenstein? Heidegger? Philosophy is a technical specialty like any niche technical discipline. The difference is that we are often trying to reorder existing human conceptual categories, properties, and relations. Rewiring the mind so to speak. I am far better than I was even four years ago. And I will get better still. But in the end, a philosopher writes for experts, experts write for the heavily interested, and the heavily interested write for the popular, and the popular simplify for the simple. This is how innovation in thought is distributed. I am not the first person to say that our job is to bring people up to the new level of comprehension not dumb it down for the existing level where its lacking. Else darwin would have vanished by now. Even still – most people still think evolution has a direction. smile emoticon I am doing something very special. And very important. And I know that doing it in public is a risk. But it turns out lots of people like to see the product being made so to speak, and it also turns out that it helps me a great deal to get their comment and criticism. I want to make it impossible for politicians and public intellectuals to lie without repercussion. To do that I have to show how to tell the truth. From there how to put the technique for truth telling into law, and a constitution. If we make it just as difficult to deceive, lie cheat, free ride and privatize as we have made it difficult to steal physical property, then liberty will result from it. Because all those things that prohibit liberty are matters of theft of one kind or another. So instead of advocating liberty as a way of producing liberty, I’m trying to outlaw everything else so that only liberty remains. It is this inversion of the philosophy of liberty that takes a while to get your head around. Just as incremental suppression of parasitism by the constant evolution of the common law leaves only the market available for survival, I want to make the incremental suppression of parasitism in the public discourse and law leaving only truth candidates that survive. If we succeed at this goal, and if we convert from monopoly rule democracy to a market for the production of commons between the classes, then we will have constructed a condition of liberty – and a condition of liberty that persists. Anyway. I really do apologize that my work is indigestible. It really does take a pretty sophisticated individual to grok it. But they do. And we move onward. Slowly. Affections Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • Responding to “Aggressively Unreadable Doolittle”

    RE: http://selfadoration.com/for-luke-williams-heres-a-com…/8123

    —“or the aggressively-unreadable Doolittle.”—-

    You know, I want to say ‘ouch’ but, I have to just own it. lol. On the other hand have you read Hegel? Wittgenstein? Heidegger? Philosophy is a technical specialty like any niche technical discipline. The difference is that we are often trying to reorder existing human conceptual categories, properties, and relations. Rewiring the mind so to speak. I am far better than I was even four years ago. And I will get better still. But in the end, a philosopher writes for experts, experts write for the heavily interested, and the heavily interested write for the popular, and the popular simplify for the simple. This is how innovation in thought is distributed. I am not the first person to say that our job is to bring people up to the new level of comprehension not dumb it down for the existing level where its lacking. Else darwin would have vanished by now. Even still – most people still think evolution has a direction. smile emoticon I am doing something very special. And very important. And I know that doing it in public is a risk. But it turns out lots of people like to see the product being made so to speak, and it also turns out that it helps me a great deal to get their comment and criticism. I want to make it impossible for politicians and public intellectuals to lie without repercussion. To do that I have to show how to tell the truth. From there how to put the technique for truth telling into law, and a constitution. If we make it just as difficult to deceive, lie cheat, free ride and privatize as we have made it difficult to steal physical property, then liberty will result from it. Because all those things that prohibit liberty are matters of theft of one kind or another. So instead of advocating liberty as a way of producing liberty, I’m trying to outlaw everything else so that only liberty remains. It is this inversion of the philosophy of liberty that takes a while to get your head around. Just as incremental suppression of parasitism by the constant evolution of the common law leaves only the market available for survival, I want to make the incremental suppression of parasitism in the public discourse and law leaving only truth candidates that survive. If we succeed at this goal, and if we convert from monopoly rule democracy to a market for the production of commons between the classes, then we will have constructed a condition of liberty – and a condition of liberty that persists. Anyway. I really do apologize that my work is indigestible. It really does take a pretty sophisticated individual to grok it. But they do. And we move onward. Slowly. Affections Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • “QUESTION:” CURT: DO YOU HAVE A SIMPLE VERSION OF THIS TALK?” Sure. Or, I’ll try

    “QUESTION:” CURT: DO YOU HAVE A SIMPLE VERSION OF THIS TALK?”

    Sure. Or, I’ll try hard. 😉

    1) The “NAP” that only limits physical aggression leaves open “trickery and deceit’ as well as ‘free riding parasitism’ and ‘conspiracy’. And by leaving open these forms of aggression, the NAP cannot produce property rights, an anarchic polity, or a condition of liberty.

    2) It is irrational for other than career criminals to prefer membership in a polity with the high transaction costs and high opportunity costs, and high risk due to trickery and conspiracy over one in which trickery, deceit, and conspiracy are permitted. And this is why no such economic polity exists.

    3) But a definition of aggression that includes physical, trickery and deceit, free riding parasitism, and conspiracy can produce property rights, an anarchic polity, and a condition of liberty. Because it is rational to prefer an anarchic polity free of these forms of parasitism over one that has much higher costs.

    4) So Rothbardian Non Aggression against ‘physical property’ can’t create a condition of liberty, while classical liberal Non Aggression against ‘demonstrated property’ can create a condition of liberty.

    5) What is demonstrated property? Anything you have homesteaded or obtained through productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange, and without imposing costs upon the demonstrated property of others.

    6) What do people demonstrate as their property? Life, Kin, Mate, Friends, Allies, physical property, territory, built capital, norms, and institutions.

    7) What Exceptions are there? Communities produce opportunities by virtue of population density and cooperation in a division of labor while using property rights, and expect members to homestead those opportunities. We call this process of homesteading opportunities ‘competition’. This creating of common opportunities and homesteading them is what produces the virtuous cycle that makes cities (markets) so productive.

    8) So how do we create liberty? We create liberty by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from transgression by others, thereby creating the first commons: property rights, or what we loosely call ‘cooperation’.

    9) This argument kills the idea of individualism per se and instead states that all rights are possessed by individuals but rights can only be created by an organized polity willing to construct them by reciprocal insurance of one another’s demonstrated property from the imposition of costs.

    The rest of the talk is largely a criticism of why the NAP failed, and why Rothbard came up with it for cultural reasons. And how the reason he didn’t complete the NAP or write it operationally was to circumvent the logical conclusion that with greater articulation his attempt to avoid payment for the commons would have been exposed.

    Source date (UTC): 2016-01-10 04:25:00 UTC

  • Q&A: Eugenics and Race?

    (important post)

    —How is eugenics a mode of thought not comparable to race? Especially given the social and economic divides amongst ethnicities?— Savannah

    [B]ecause eugenics is the study of individuals using the properties of individuals while race applies properties of a class to all individuals represented or not by those properties. 1 – One can judge an individual by the properties of its class (racism) 2 – One can judge a class by the properties of its individuals (racialism). 3 – Or one can judge individuals by the properties of each individual (eugenics). The first is simply non logical and immoral. The second is logical, moral, but in-actionable The third is simply logical, moral, and actionable. Eugenics of some sort is necessary for shared prosperity. I prefer paying the underclasses not to breed, and not paying them and sterilizing them if they do; and eliminating the migration of labor to capital and requiring the migration of capital to labor instead; maintaining as close to a homogenous society as possible. If we have small states with these policies we will have marginal inequality – inequality is necessary for the organization of invention, investment, production, distribution, trade, and savings. But people disproportinoately resist redistribution when it consists of parasitism. Women have a genetic ‘incompetence’ in political matters as they evolved to protect their offspring and other women’s offspring REGARDLESS of their merit as a means of surviving their ‘ownership’ by competing bands of males. So just as men are noticeably incompetent with childrearing, women are noticeably incompetent with political matters. Even if it’s uncomfortable, the data on the 20th century is in: women happily destroy civilization due to their reliance upon internal intuitionistic incompetence designed to produce irrational behavior: the birthing, care and preservation of children in the presence of warring males, and the need to demonstrate submission and to and share with other women as a means of work sharing, risk reduction, and maintaining group cohesion against existing and invading males. Women see us men as the enemy. That is why feminists sound like they do. It may be true that we are an enemy of their parasitism. But we are far less of an enemy than the enemy they import into our nations through the misapplication of their genetically produced political incompetence which is a side effect of the need to care for an extremely costly, annoying child, over which she may or may have not had much control in the selection of fathers, and even when she did, it was impulsive and speculative rather than reasoned – and most often selected by familiarity and empathy rather than understanding and judgement. A mother’s love is blind for a reason. It must be. A reasonable creature would walk away from an offspring that requires five to seven years of high cost maintenance to reach minimum self sufficiency, and twice that for maturity. But her blindness applies not only to her children and her peers children, but to anything that she can imagine. Does that hurt? Well, you know it’s just true. The data is in. Women have no place in politics. It’s suicidal.