Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • (That does not bear scrutiny. See: Freud, Boaz, Marx, Mises, Rothbard)

    (That does not bear scrutiny. See: Freud, Boaz, Marx, Mises, Rothbard)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-26 11:07:43 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/658600893093433344

    Reply addressees: @libertarianism @CatoInstitute @JasonKuznicki @GrantBabcock @ARossP

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/655071341431934976

    IN REPLY TO:

    @libertarianism

    .@JasonKuznicki, @GrantBabcock, and @ARossP discuss the 1st part of Rothbard’s book: http://t.co/4f5zrRX3w8 http://t.co/ReUlUsaFze

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/655071341431934976

  • (Don’t wanna wear out my welcome there, but will do)

    (Don’t wanna wear out my welcome there, but will do)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-24 19:12:37 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/657998145742360576

    Reply addressees: @Anti_Gnostic

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/657997766090604544

    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/657997766090604544

  • (no idea what a possum committee is but i’m usually up for a party.) 🙂

    (no idea what a possum committee is but i’m usually up for a party.) 🙂

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-24 19:10:22 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/657997578366275585

    Reply addressees: @harrison_partch

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/657164867468722176

    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/657164867468722176

  • (not going for that. That’s what brit’s tried. It failed.)

    (not going for that. That’s what brit’s tried. It failed.)

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-22 17:32:28 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/657248164861317120

    Reply addressees: @ne0colonial

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/657143996431532032

    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/657143996431532032

  • Eli. Genius

    Eli. Genius,

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-21 10:10:00 UTC

  • Q: —“What’s your solution to homelessness if you don’t mind me asking?”— If

    Q: —“What’s your solution to homelessness if you don’t mind me asking?”—

    If they desire to be homeless then there is no problem of homelessness. There is merely a problem of the maximum tolerance for care and feeding of them, and a (visious) prohibition on the homeless’ abuse of the charity of others.

    If they do not desire to be homeless, then we are failing to devote temporary resources to people in need.

    From what I can gather there is no homeless problem. We have a serious schizophrenia problem. We have a serious drug and alcohol problem. We have a serious unemployability problem (because of declining demand for work by underclasses). And we have a moderate low income housing program because we will not police them severely enough that they are preferable to the relative safety of the streets.

    The primary reason people like to be homeless is socialization unavailable to them otherwise, and lack of criticism in a dynamic environment where social ostracization and pressure would give them negative feedback constantly otherwise.

    One of the values of being homeless is the constant stream of public resources devoted to providing for you in times of need.

    But the central problem is that we do not create and strictly police ‘villages’ for people who are merely unfortunate but well behaved. We no longer put the vast number of schizophrenics in ‘prisons’. We no longer purge public parks and spaces of ‘vagrants’.

    We no longer raise the cost of their behavior on parasites such that it is preferable to seek inexpensive housing and care over the terrorism of being prohibited from fouling private property and beloved commons.

    So in my opinion there is no ‘homeless’ problem per se. ANd it’s just politicking by women who need an oxytocin fix by ruminating over it, and the failure to remove liberty from those who cannot make use of it without harm to others.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 08:42:00 UTC

  • Q&A: NAME FOR PROTECTIONISM FOR THE NORMATIVE COMMONS? —“Curt… Can you help

    Q&A: NAME FOR PROTECTIONISM FOR THE NORMATIVE COMMONS?

    —“Curt… Can you help me find the correct term which describes a nationalist state that allows freedom as long as you don’t “go against the nation (the foundation of the nation and the heritage)”.—

    Well, you do it with a set of rules (limits) and you give that a name. In the main, you’re describing a nationalist state which exercises the right of exclusion (which is required by natural law) to prohibit non-kin (non nationals) and the contractual (constitutional) provision that one may not export costs of association and trade onto other citizens’s common property:culture.

    We have no name that I know of for such a thing other than Nationalism, and nationalism fits. But it is not constrained enough. So we must add the limitation of protectionism. But we must clarify protectionism not of trade but of culture. So I would say Culturally Protectionist Nationalism.

    This conveys free trade allowing competition for goods and services, but not competition for culture, just as we do not allow competition for property rights, law, and government.

    The Chinese do this aggressively. So do the Muslims. And presently the Russians have started.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-18 03:34:00 UTC

  • “WHO IS TO DO THE LAUNDERING?” THE EFFECT OF WARRANTY —“As for truth, who is t

    http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/06/21/a-hierarchy-of-truths/Q&A: “WHO IS TO DO THE LAUNDERING?” THE EFFECT OF WARRANTY

    —“As for truth, who is to do the laundering and how do we know if it has been done in error?”—Karl Smith

    We do it ourselves, and warranty we have done so. If we have ‘interests’ then we can test it. But warranty tends to produce desired ends: “skin in the game”.

    1) Spectrum: Deceitful, Honest, Truthful, True, Tautological.

    See: A Hierarchy of Truths

    http://www.propertarianism.com%2F2015%2F06%2F21%2Fa-hierarchy-of-truths%2F

    2) We can give honest testimony but honesty is not warrantied (promise) that we have performed due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. As such we cannot state that we have laundered that information consisting of imaginary, erroneous, imaginary, biased, or wishful thinking from it.

    We can give truthful testimony, if we can warranty we have performed due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit. We need a method of performing due diligence (criticism) of our statements.

    We cannot testify to truth even if we utter it, because even if we perform due diligence against error, bias, wishful thinking, and deceit, we cannot know if we are informationally complete, and cannot warranty it.

    We can testify to a tautology because it is informationally complete, but as informationally complete it has no theoretical content (no general rule), and therefore no general explanatory power, and requires no warranty.

    3) We can subject our theories to criticisms:

    – identity (naming, properties, category)

    – internal consistency(logic),

    – external correspondence(empiricism),

    – parsimony(limits),

    – existential possibility (operationalism),

    – morality (productive, fully informed, warrantied, voluntary transfer, free of hazard and externality of the same criteria),

    Or more simply, we can use the scientific method, which has nothing unique to the sciences per se, and instead is a general process of criticism for the production of truthful testimony: epistemology.

    Science is a Moral Discipline

    http://www.propertarianism.com%2F2014%2F12%2F23%2Fscience-is-a-moral-discipline-in-which-we-struggle-to-speak-truthfully%2F

    MORE – SEE

    a) A Short Course In Testimonial Truth

    https://www.google.com/search…

    b) A Short Course in Propertarian Morality

    www.propertarianism.com%2F2015%2F07%2F27%2Fa-short-course-in-propertarian-morality-2%2F

    Curt Doolittle

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-16 04:46:00 UTC

  • Q&A: WTF ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT? 😉 —“I have to ask… what the actual FUC

    Q&A: WTF ARE YOU GUYS TALKING ABOUT? 😉

    —“I have to ask… what the actual FUCK are you guys talking about? From the outside this all reads like complete and utter nonsense — but each of you seem convinced that what you are speaking to is real, and concrete. Help a brother out.”—-Michael V. Coppola

    It’s not nonsense really. Its actually a profoundly important argument.

    WHY?

    Leftists rely on loading(adding emotional content), framing(selective presentation of argument) and overloading (repetition and propaganda), to advance their agenda with pseudoscience, misrepresentation, and outright lying, and to resist criticism by rallying and shaming (what we call political correctness).

    What the other guys are arguing is that without government, media, and academy (“the Cathedral Complex”) they can use the same techniques to ‘inspire’ a competing alternative religion. And second, that I should adopt this strategy in my work.

    Now my work is the merger of science and philosophy into what I call Testimonialism (an extension of the scientific method), and Propertarianism (an extension of property rights, rule of law, and classical government), and what I have done is created an amoral (which means objective and emotionless) language and logic that does not require we rely upon introspection to determine if something is truly objectively moral or not.

    I want to make it very difficult to lie in public when discussing the production of commons (politics). They want to preserve this dishonest form of argument because they feel the heroic tradition is not enough to inspire people (despite the evidence of its persistence across millennia).

    They are advocating that I do the opposite. which defeats the entire purpose of my work: creating an environment as saturated with truth, as the post-christian era was saturated with reason, and the current era is saturated with physical science. I want to restore the high trust society, restore us to truthful discourse, and make it impossible for parasites to compete and survive within our society.

    Now, normally I would see this argument as silly but I have a long standing policy of defeating attackers completely, and it’s a great opportunity to discuss this problem with people who are highly invested (ON THE RIGHT) but who want to continue to make use of the tools that enabled THE LEFT.

    That’s basically it.

    Thanks for asking.

    Curt Doolittle

    The Philosophy of Aristocracy

    The Propertarian Institute

    Kiev, Ukraine

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-15 16:53:00 UTC

  • tell me your ip and i’ll unlock it

    tell me your ip and i’ll unlock it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-10-12 05:52:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/653448254781288448

    Reply addressees: @adage_a_day

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/653410762543656961

    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/653410762543656961