Curt Doolittle

Form: Reply

  • I think you’re misreading something. Enlightenment Critique (Comment), vs Marxis

    I think you’re misreading something. Enlightenment Critique (Comment), vs Marxist Critique (CofC), vs Criticism (science).

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 11:42:51 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636504071676014592

    Reply addressees: @IT_Reactionary

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636301523744591872

    IN REPLY TO:

    Unknown author

    @IT_Reactionary Thx 🙂 Pls help me with the ‘lack of criticism’ reference. If I got it wrong I want to know. -cheers

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/636301523744591872

    IN REPLY TO:

    @curtdoolittle

    @IT_Reactionary Thx 🙂 Pls help me with the ‘lack of criticism’ reference. If I got it wrong I want to know. -cheers

    Original post: https://x.com/i/web/status/636301523744591872

  • Sorry. Forgot who referred me to it. Here is my response

    Sorry. Forgot who referred me to it. Here is my response: http://www.propertarianism.com/2015/08/25/haidts-relevance-to-politics-and-law/

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-26 10:03:46 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636479138367410176

    Reply addressees: @SanguineEmpiric

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/635901881303195649

    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/635901881303195649

  • Thx 🙂 Pls help me with the ‘lack of criticism’ reference. If I got it wrong I w

    Thx 🙂 Pls help me with the ‘lack of criticism’ reference. If I got it wrong I want to know. -cheers

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-25 22:17:59 UTC

    Original post: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636301523744591872

    Reply addressees: @IT_Reactionary

    Replying to: https://twitter.com/i/web/status/636176533577666560

    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/636176533577666560

  • Thought you would be interested in the cartoon illustrations here

    Thought you would be interested in the cartoon illustrations here:

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-25 08:52:00 UTC

  • Q&A: Curt Can You Give Me Simple Answers?

    —“So how does one define morality in this view [Propertarianism]?  What is its foundation?”— At a minimum, non-impositions of costs upon property-en-toto, and at the median a prohibition on free riding, and at the maximum the requirement for mutual insurance, thus preserving the incentive to cooperate and gain the disproportionate rewards of cooperating all along the cooperative spectrum. (This is in fact, what our moral intuitions evolved for and remain.)

    -“What is operationalism and how does it work in concrete terms?”— A testimony (or promise or description) stated as an existentially possible sequence of subjectively testable operations. Explanation: It is the equivalent of a proof in mathematics: a test that a mathematical statement can be constructed from existentially possible operations. It is the equivalent of a recipe for baking a cake (or any other repeatable operation.) The purpose of operationalism and Eprime is to ensure that the individual has laundered error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from his speech. An example would be your use of the terms ‘morality, view, foundation, what-is, ‘ and ‘concrete’ which are vague analogies sufficient for colloquial speech but both illustrate that you do not know the existentially possible terminology you could and should use if you know the existential rather than analogistic construction of those concepts. In moral speech operational tests not only force the speaker to know what he is talking about, but also, when combined with full accounting, parsimony, and productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange and a prohibition on negative externalities, then it is very obvious at each operation (action) to determine if someone is acting morally or immorally. It is a tedious manner of speech (just as programming is a tedious means of instruction) however out of this tedious requirement, it becomes very hard to error, bias, wishfully present, and deceptively convey ideas. –“I find this suspicious: “The problem is that [propertarianism] really requires a course””– Why? Why do people need a course on Nietzche, Marx or Postmodernism? Don’t first year micro and macro economics, each form of mathematics, first year public choice theory, basic rhetoric, evolution, first year accounting, first year contract,.. and on and on require a course? Why is it that you think that something that has taken 2500 years to solve, by a host of minds greater than mine, should be somehow trivial to convey? I’m a pretty smart guy and I spent two entire years on truth. Can you even tell me what ‘true’ means? So it’s non logical that this should be an easy subject. Brouwer, Bridgman, Popper, Hayek and Mises failed. Why should it be trivial?

  • Q&A: Curt Can You Give Me Simple Answers?

    —“So how does one define morality in this view [Propertarianism]?  What is its foundation?”— At a minimum, non-impositions of costs upon property-en-toto, and at the median a prohibition on free riding, and at the maximum the requirement for mutual insurance, thus preserving the incentive to cooperate and gain the disproportionate rewards of cooperating all along the cooperative spectrum. (This is in fact, what our moral intuitions evolved for and remain.)

    -“What is operationalism and how does it work in concrete terms?”— A testimony (or promise or description) stated as an existentially possible sequence of subjectively testable operations. Explanation: It is the equivalent of a proof in mathematics: a test that a mathematical statement can be constructed from existentially possible operations. It is the equivalent of a recipe for baking a cake (or any other repeatable operation.) The purpose of operationalism and Eprime is to ensure that the individual has laundered error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from his speech. An example would be your use of the terms ‘morality, view, foundation, what-is, ‘ and ‘concrete’ which are vague analogies sufficient for colloquial speech but both illustrate that you do not know the existentially possible terminology you could and should use if you know the existential rather than analogistic construction of those concepts. In moral speech operational tests not only force the speaker to know what he is talking about, but also, when combined with full accounting, parsimony, and productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange and a prohibition on negative externalities, then it is very obvious at each operation (action) to determine if someone is acting morally or immorally. It is a tedious manner of speech (just as programming is a tedious means of instruction) however out of this tedious requirement, it becomes very hard to error, bias, wishfully present, and deceptively convey ideas. –“I find this suspicious: “The problem is that [propertarianism] really requires a course””– Why? Why do people need a course on Nietzche, Marx or Postmodernism? Don’t first year micro and macro economics, each form of mathematics, first year public choice theory, basic rhetoric, evolution, first year accounting, first year contract,.. and on and on require a course? Why is it that you think that something that has taken 2500 years to solve, by a host of minds greater than mine, should be somehow trivial to convey? I’m a pretty smart guy and I spent two entire years on truth. Can you even tell me what ‘true’ means? So it’s non logical that this should be an easy subject. Brouwer, Bridgman, Popper, Hayek and Mises failed. Why should it be trivial?

  • Q&A: Boosting our Spirits: Love Your Kin.  Reproduce Your Kin. We Will Win.

    —“Curt: Maybe I’m wrong; maybe I misread it; maybe you aren’t so in favor of the continuation of violent types as have come from my family,”— I am trying to RESTORE violence to political discourse. When I talk about genetic pacification I’m criticizing IMPULSIVITY not violence. I want men to be violent in the suppression of free-riders, criminals, usurpers and invaders. Awarrior, a sheriff, and judge and a king use violence for good. A free-rider, criminal, usurper and invader use it for parasitism. Violence is neither good or bad, it is merely put to good or bad ends. If we abandon violence then we cannot put it to good ends – and we need to.

    —“…but you have restored pride and a sense of urgency in me to keep the traditional European family alive. I know my mother, and aunts, and uncles would love to shake your hand for doing that to me, as they long considered me a lost cause, a man “too smart for his own good,” but you have in some ways circled me back home.”— Well you made my day if not my week. Thank you. Because that is what I want to do. Restore moral authority and intellectual credibility to our aristocratic political system. But the fact that I influenced your life a bit is the best feeling I can hope for. —“For a while, I considered children and child-rearing as these unexplainably horrendous endeavors, and it must seem that way to people with destroyed heritages, to people who’ve lost the connection to the traditional family structure. … I’m actually visiting my sister’s place right now, with her recent daughter, and her teething cries doesn’t really bother me, because I look at it in a larger, prouder context, thanks to you.”— —“I see our people going down, the same people who created most of what has ever been great in this word, and having men like you in my life who can give rational reason to not give up, is important to me. It makes me want to find a nice Germanic lass and make 6 kids.”— OK. Now I’m almost moved to tears. That’s exactly what we need to do. –“This is what proper parents do for their children; we need to restore the proper family, to head off this dysgenic, infertile decline.”— Reproduction is also UNDER YOUR CONTROL, where politics, law and the economy are not. You have complete control over it. So, be fertile and prosper.  🙂 Men need to understand the collapse and why it occurred. We have to ignore feminist parasitism and rebellion and restore the family. We can defeat them in a few generations by merely ending immigration of the underclasses, and out-breeding them by two to one. THANKS

  • Q&A: Boosting our Spirits: Love Your Kin.  Reproduce Your Kin. We Will Win.

    —“Curt: Maybe I’m wrong; maybe I misread it; maybe you aren’t so in favor of the continuation of violent types as have come from my family,”— I am trying to RESTORE violence to political discourse. When I talk about genetic pacification I’m criticizing IMPULSIVITY not violence. I want men to be violent in the suppression of free-riders, criminals, usurpers and invaders. Awarrior, a sheriff, and judge and a king use violence for good. A free-rider, criminal, usurper and invader use it for parasitism. Violence is neither good or bad, it is merely put to good or bad ends. If we abandon violence then we cannot put it to good ends – and we need to.

    —“…but you have restored pride and a sense of urgency in me to keep the traditional European family alive. I know my mother, and aunts, and uncles would love to shake your hand for doing that to me, as they long considered me a lost cause, a man “too smart for his own good,” but you have in some ways circled me back home.”— Well you made my day if not my week. Thank you. Because that is what I want to do. Restore moral authority and intellectual credibility to our aristocratic political system. But the fact that I influenced your life a bit is the best feeling I can hope for. —“For a while, I considered children and child-rearing as these unexplainably horrendous endeavors, and it must seem that way to people with destroyed heritages, to people who’ve lost the connection to the traditional family structure. … I’m actually visiting my sister’s place right now, with her recent daughter, and her teething cries doesn’t really bother me, because I look at it in a larger, prouder context, thanks to you.”— —“I see our people going down, the same people who created most of what has ever been great in this word, and having men like you in my life who can give rational reason to not give up, is important to me. It makes me want to find a nice Germanic lass and make 6 kids.”— OK. Now I’m almost moved to tears. That’s exactly what we need to do. –“This is what proper parents do for their children; we need to restore the proper family, to head off this dysgenic, infertile decline.”— Reproduction is also UNDER YOUR CONTROL, where politics, law and the economy are not. You have complete control over it. So, be fertile and prosper.  🙂 Men need to understand the collapse and why it occurred. We have to ignore feminist parasitism and rebellion and restore the family. We can defeat them in a few generations by merely ending immigration of the underclasses, and out-breeding them by two to one. THANKS

  • It’s quite possible you are the only person I know who will get anywhere near un

    It’s quite possible you are the only person I know who will get anywhere near understanding this, so I had better post it on your page Curt!

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-23 17:16:00 UTC

  • Q&A: —“So how does one define morality in this view? What is its foundation?”-

    Q&A:

    —“So how does one define morality in this view? What is its foundation?”—

    At a minimum, non-impositions of costs upon property-en-toto, and at the median a prohibition on free riding, and at the maximum the requirement for mutual insurance, thus preserving the incentive to cooperate and gain the disproportionate rewards of cooperating all along the cooperative spectrum. (This is in fact, what our moral intuitions evolved for and remain.)

    -“What is operationalism and how does it work in concrete terms?”—

    A testimony (or promise or description) delivered as an existentially possible sequence of subjectively testable operations.

    Explanation: It is the equivalent of a proof in mathematics: a test that a mathematical statement can be constructed from existentially possible operations. It is the equivalent of a recipe for baking a cake (or any other repeatable operation.) The purpose of operationalism and Eprime is to ensure that the individual has laundered error, bias, wishful thinking and deception from his speech. An example would be your use of the terms ‘morality, view, foundation, what-is, ‘ and ‘concrete’ which are vague analogies sufficient for colloquial speech but both illustrate that you do not know the existentially possible terminology you could and should use if you know the existential rather than analogistic construction of those concepts.

    In moral speech operational tests not only force the speaker to know what he is talking about, but also, when combined with full accounting, parsimony, and productive, fully informed, voluntary exchange and a prohibition on negative externalities, then it is very obvious at each operation (action) to determine if someone is acting morally or immorally. It is a tedious manner of speech (just as programming is a tedious means of instruction) however out of this tedious requirement, it becomes very hard to error, bias, wishfully present, and deceptively convey ideas.

    –“I find this suspicious: “The problem is that [propertarianism] really requires a course””–

    Why? Why do people need a course on Nietzche, Marx or Postmodernism? Don’t first year micro and macro economics, each form of mathematics, first year public choice theory, basic rhetoric, evolution, first year accounting, first year contract,.. and on and on. Why is it that you think that something that has taken 2500 years to solve, by a host of minds greater than mine, should be somehow trivial to convey? I’m a pretty smart guy and I spent two entire years on truth. Can you tell me what ‘true’ means? So it’s non logical that this should be an easy subject. Brouwer, Bridgman, Popper, Hayek and Mises failed. Why should it be trivial?

    Source date (UTC): 2015-08-19 15:56:00 UTC