Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • Opinion on Tucker? Missing the Boat.

    (from elsewhere)

    —“What’s your current opinion of Jeffrey Tucker?”—Johannesson

    [T]ucker is a decent fellow seeking income by popularizing libertinism. As a writer he is articulate. As a marketer of ideas he is quite good. As an editor he is even better. As a theorist he is as weak as the rest. As an entrepreneur he conflates his advocacy of his over-investment in his passion with the demands of the market: something no libertarian should fail to recognize. Ideology must satisfy market demand just as any other product. Like the MI he failed to see the dramatic sea change from hopeful and rebellious classical liberals combined with a few social misfits, to alt-right classical liberals and many socially con-formative. And by missing that shift, and holding onto prior intellectual investments, he has missed his opportunity to generate revenue by continuing WITH the stream, rather than now struggling against it. The world has moved on. The Alt-right owns the momentum because it attacks the lies and pseudoscience of the postmoderns head-on, rather than continuing the won-battle against socialism. The Libertine generation is over. Libertines cannot hold territory against invaders wishing to impose alternative normative and institutional ambitions. No one gets a free ride on liberty. The only means of obtaining liberty is the violent suppression of those who would take it from us. Alt-right is the only possible form of liberty, and therefore the only direction of libertarian investment. It is what it is. Adapt or perish. Curt Doolittle The Propertarian Institute Kiev, Ukraine

  • I don’t know enough about the matter. But Albanians produce a low trust polity –

    I don’t know enough about the matter. But Albanians produce a low trust polity – yes.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-24 10:53:40 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/647000942370529280

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/646161442131959809

    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/646161442131959809

  • I’m sure you’re aware of Communitarianism. Thought you might like to see this, t

    I’m sure you’re aware of Communitarianism. Thought you might like to see this, though.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-24 09:23:00 UTC

  • Q&A: WHAT IS THE POINT OF POLYCENTRIC LAW? –“I don’t think most polycentrists c

    Q&A: WHAT IS THE POINT OF POLYCENTRIC LAW?

    –“I don’t think most polycentrists claim that polycentric law would be conflicting or arbitrary, not much more than it already is, certainly not to the degree that it would be rendered undecidable.”—

    Well, first, just to point out the obvious, then what is the point of it? Emotional satisfaction? The common law is already polycentric. In the sense that it evolves through every single judgement, and can be appealed on the basis of erroneous judicial judgement (not on the facts, but on the application of law).

    The question facing libertarians is that polycentrisim is a convenient intellectual distraction from having failed to determine a necessary and sufficient means upon which to construct law.

    Now I know enough cosmopolitan philosophy to know that this is the central strategy of cosmopolitan authors and their jewish predecessors: to state a half truth in order to allow subjective judgement to survive.

    I have only begun my work on their strategy of deception through suggestion but I see it as not terribly helpful to my cause. So I haven’t taken it far enough.

    Operationalism eliminates the tactic so that its no longer possible. I am more interested in the solution (operationalism and testimonialism) than I am in criticizing the group evolutionary strategy of the jewish enlightenment.

    Hence why I focus on solutions rather than criticisms.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC

  • Q&A: HOW CAN WE REPEAL ARCHAIC LAW? —“Are there provisions for repealing archa

    Q&A: HOW CAN WE REPEAL ARCHAIC LAW?

    —“Are there provisions for repealing archaic law?”—

    Since independent, organically evolved common law is not legislated, it need not be repealed. It need only be falsified by new law – just as all sciences falsify old theories with newer better theories.

    In general both law and theory add precision, rather than falsify.

    One of the values of strictly constructed law is that (a) it is very hard to create an erroneous law, and (b) it is easy to restructure(refactor) it (just as we restructure a program in software).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC

  • Q&A: IS INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR LAW? –“I’ve

    Q&A: IS INCREMENTAL SUPPRESSION OF PARASITISM THE ONLY CRITERIA FOR LAW?

    –“I’ve read your articles on incremental suppression of parasitism. Is that the only way law evolves in your formulation? “—

    I cannot think of any other reason for LAW to evolve, even though I can think of many reasons why alternative CONTRACTS would evolve.

    So when you are referring to the term ‘law’, I suspect you use the common convention of conflating discovered law, legislative command, legislative contract, and regulatory law into a single category of ‘that which must be obeyed’.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:41:00 UTC

  • Q&A: CURT, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF PREDICTION MARKETS? —“what do you think of pre

    Q&A: CURT, WHAT DO YOU THINK OF PREDICTION MARKETS?

    —“what do you think of prediction markets?”—

    Unfortunately, this is an incomplete question. 🙂 To have an opinion I must have some outcome (context) to judge them. As an empirical means of obtaining excellent information and overcoming journalistic bias, I think that they are very close to self-insured propositions. And as a Propertarian and Testimonialist, I have nothing but good to say about them as experiments in demonstrating the LACK of quality of the opinions of public intellectuals. (which I think we all know is only useful as a set of propositions to choose between, not as particularly predictive.)

    But it’s possible that your question may intend to ask whether we may institutionalize prediction markets for some particular end. And I’d have to know that end in order to answer it.

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-20 09:38:00 UTC

  • Well, I have to read it, but from the summary it looks like we’re on the same pa

    Well, I have to read it, but from the summary it looks like we’re on the same page, yes. Thank you for this find!!!!

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-13 09:40:34 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/642996281124720640

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/642982818268606468

    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/642982818268606468

  • “legitimate” is nonsense word. But: “Merchant-centric demographic policy is absu

    “legitimate” is nonsense word. But: “Merchant-centric demographic policy is absurd.” is a gem. 😉

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-11 09:03:13 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/642262104490278912

    Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641472937246068740

    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/641472937246068740

  • Funny, but a witticism not a criticism. Conservatism is scientific in process an

    Funny, but a witticism not a criticism. Conservatism is scientific in process and allegorical in language. I want to fix it

    Source date (UTC): 2015-09-11 07:19:32 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/642236012274581504

    Reply addressees: @mdavilamartinez

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641992610094014464

    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/641992610094014464