Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • omg

    omg. https://twitter.com/masonic_tweets/status/678488653388091392

  • Oh, Alice. We can forgive one another our petty vanities. OTOH, I can’t forgive

    Oh, Alice. We can forgive one another our petty vanities. OTOH, I can’t forgive getting our soldiers killed and lying about it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-20 09:25:14 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/678506432107560960

    Reply addressees: @AliceTeller

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/678344770461294594

    IN REPLY TO:

    @AliceTeller

    I don’t want to rain on anyone’s parade but the man cheered as the ultimate alpha in America has dyed hair, a comb-over and a manicure.

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/678344770461294594

  • Agreed. It is we who must prohibit lies as we prohibited murder theft and fraud:

    Agreed. It is we who must prohibit lies as we prohibited murder theft and fraud: using violence.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-12-19 20:03:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/678304726857981952

    Reply addressees: @johann_theron @michaeljohns @amerika_blog

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674471938283171840

    IN REPLY TO:

    @johann_theron

    The US Empire or NWO as they like to call themselves, will not stand up to formal logic scrutiny. @michaeljohns @amerika_blog @curtdoolittle

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674471938283171840

  • I’m Not Trying To Start a Cult – But To Restore The West By Starting A War.

    (from elsewhere) I don’t understand Shaun. I think people who have been following me for a few years know why I use FB and why I run all these “tests”. Maybe it isn’t obvious any longer. I construct theories. I test them. These theories are designed to help me understand what I don’t. So I will spend a year making some set of arguments until nothing new is coming back..Ad move on to another of the same. I worked my way through the libertarian. I worked through the nrx. i’m working through the alt-right – and I try to understand. Along the way I need to pick up a few people who can construct arguments. That’s happening. I am not trying to start a cult. (i’m trying to create a plan to start a war)”

  • I’m Not Trying To Start a Cult – But To Restore The West By Starting A War.

    (from elsewhere) I don’t understand Shaun. I think people who have been following me for a few years know why I use FB and why I run all these “tests”. Maybe it isn’t obvious any longer. I construct theories. I test them. These theories are designed to help me understand what I don’t. So I will spend a year making some set of arguments until nothing new is coming back..Ad move on to another of the same. I worked my way through the libertarian. I worked through the nrx. i’m working through the alt-right – and I try to understand. Along the way I need to pick up a few people who can construct arguments. That’s happening. I am not trying to start a cult. (i’m trying to create a plan to start a war)”

  • The Power To Enforce Laws That Have Been Discovered

    (by Eli Harman)

    “Make lying illegal and you’ll outlaw the truth. So what other “LAWS” do you want to make? What other power do you want to give to those who have power?”

    [Y]ou misunderstand. My aim isn’t to give power, but to take it, and to hold it. In specific, the power I seek is not that of MAKING laws, but of enforcing those that I DISCOVER to be conductive to human flourishing and cooperation, by such processes as shall prove most conducive to the discovery of such laws, meaning, in large part, distributed processes. But that is not the whole part, because hierarchy and authority have their place too. Some conflicts are not decidable under law, because there may be no objectively “right” or “best” answer. But the role of authority is in pronouncing judgement in such cases, when there is nevertheless some benefit to being on the same page. And in the never-ending clash and conflict between authorities, we must suppose truth, wisdom, and justice to confer some advantages, though not all will embody or exhibit them, and none perfectly.

  • The Power To Enforce Laws That Have Been Discovered

    (by Eli Harman)

    “Make lying illegal and you’ll outlaw the truth. So what other “LAWS” do you want to make? What other power do you want to give to those who have power?”

    [Y]ou misunderstand. My aim isn’t to give power, but to take it, and to hold it. In specific, the power I seek is not that of MAKING laws, but of enforcing those that I DISCOVER to be conductive to human flourishing and cooperation, by such processes as shall prove most conducive to the discovery of such laws, meaning, in large part, distributed processes. But that is not the whole part, because hierarchy and authority have their place too. Some conflicts are not decidable under law, because there may be no objectively “right” or “best” answer. But the role of authority is in pronouncing judgement in such cases, when there is nevertheless some benefit to being on the same page. And in the never-ending clash and conflict between authorities, we must suppose truth, wisdom, and justice to confer some advantages, though not all will embody or exhibit them, and none perfectly.

  • Refuting Immoral Attacks on Propertarianism

    (from an exchange) [W]hy would you even try to criticize Propertarianism unless you either don’t understand it, are immoral, or both?

      I have spent a lot of my life in these subjects and I am all too well aware of the power of so called “scribblers” to reorder human thinking. The question I have for anyone that criticises these ambitions is why they prefer pseudoscience to science, obscurantism to philosophy, propaganda to information, deceit to truthfulness. There is no safe answer with which one can retort. Especially since the evidence of transformation of polities to greater correspondence (truth) is now overwhelming in every era. So if you don’t like me or my arguments you are welcome to attempt to refute them. But constant offers if opinion and a failure to construct argument are just pissing in fire hydrants. Basically you are forcing a cost of refutation upon me by shaming rather than engaging in the pursuit of truth. First, this violates the principle of cooperation under which it is rational to forgo predation in favour of cooperation. Second it is a rather obvious tactic. And the question it presents us with is why are you motivated to preserve lying, shaming, rallying which is merely the postmodern equivalent is saying its unchristian and a violation of gods will. So if we focus the lens in your incentives and abilities, then why is it that you as one who imposes costs upon others rather than seeking the truth, and imposes those costs though fraudulent methods of criticism, and who seeks to preserve the institutional tolerance for the forms of fraud that you employ … Why is it that you feel your pseudo rational non empirical, truth preventing, arguments should be more tolerable in politics than their rationalist and supernatural predecessors? Why are you so afraid of truth and voluntary exchange? Why are you so immoral that you will impose costs by fraud upon others? In other words, why are you demonstrably an immoral person? Except to perpetuate immorality? Truth built the west. Truth can restore it. (A couple of middle class guys hanging around Paris nearly overthrew the world.)

    • Refuting Immoral Attacks on Propertarianism

      (from an exchange) [W]hy would you even try to criticize Propertarianism unless you either don’t understand it, are immoral, or both?

        I have spent a lot of my life in these subjects and I am all too well aware of the power of so called “scribblers” to reorder human thinking. The question I have for anyone that criticises these ambitions is why they prefer pseudoscience to science, obscurantism to philosophy, propaganda to information, deceit to truthfulness. There is no safe answer with which one can retort. Especially since the evidence of transformation of polities to greater correspondence (truth) is now overwhelming in every era. So if you don’t like me or my arguments you are welcome to attempt to refute them. But constant offers if opinion and a failure to construct argument are just pissing in fire hydrants. Basically you are forcing a cost of refutation upon me by shaming rather than engaging in the pursuit of truth. First, this violates the principle of cooperation under which it is rational to forgo predation in favour of cooperation. Second it is a rather obvious tactic. And the question it presents us with is why are you motivated to preserve lying, shaming, rallying which is merely the postmodern equivalent is saying its unchristian and a violation of gods will. So if we focus the lens in your incentives and abilities, then why is it that you as one who imposes costs upon others rather than seeking the truth, and imposes those costs though fraudulent methods of criticism, and who seeks to preserve the institutional tolerance for the forms of fraud that you employ … Why is it that you feel your pseudo rational non empirical, truth preventing, arguments should be more tolerable in politics than their rationalist and supernatural predecessors? Why are you so afraid of truth and voluntary exchange? Why are you so immoral that you will impose costs by fraud upon others? In other words, why are you demonstrably an immoral person? Except to perpetuate immorality? Truth built the west. Truth can restore it. (A couple of middle class guys hanging around Paris nearly overthrew the world.)

      • Alexander I am fairly certain that it is possible if not necessary to construct

        Alexander

        I am fairly certain that it is possible if not necessary to construct a finished constitutional basis for rule of law.

        It may be impossible to imagine the means of production of commons that we call government within that rule of law.

        Because the basis of the rule of law appears to be a universal logical necessity.

        Yet the basis of government production of commons under rule of law is a mere technology that must adapt to innovations in knowledge.

        Just as the common law must constantly innovate in order to prohibit newly found means of imposing costs upon others against their will.

        So from this perspective the hierarch of law is:

        1) Rule of law and Logic of contract (fixed)

        2) Resolutions of disputes. ( juridically expandable)

        3) Construction of commons. (Constitutionally modifiable)

        Which is a bottom up construction of a constitutional order.

        Curt Doolittle.

        The Propertarian Institute.

        Kiev, Ukraine.

        Source date (UTC): 2015-12-16 06:16:00 UTC